Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

XCancel service is suspended until further notice

xcancel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 763 posts

Re: XCancel service is suspended until further notice

#251

Post by brainwad »

darkwater wrote: post #249
brainwad wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between creating a market for something better, so that nobody wants the old thing, and competing _in_ the market for the old thing by copying it directly.

And what would be a read-only version of X like XCancel compete against, exactly? Ads impressions? That would be the only possible thing yet they don't add any ads.

It's depriving X of impressions that they could monetise, no? Xcancel doesn't have to make money itself, it just has to impair the rights of the copyright holder. Otherwise piracy would also be legal as long as it were non-profit...

Re: XCancel service is suspended until further notice

#252

Post by tencentshill »

rob74 wrote: post #99

Maybe instead of trying to get rid of services that provide a more convenient access to X to non-logged-in users, they should realize that there is a real market behind these services - users that will likely never sign up to X, but who want to read/watch some content without the incessant nagging and limitations that X subjects non-logged-in users to?

Do they not understand you can still serve ads to non-logged-in users? They can still be tracked nearly as effectively with fingerprinting.

Re: XCancel service is suspended until further notice

#253

Post by LightBug1 »

sureglymop wrote: post #47
simondotau wrote: post #10

If you don’t like X, I don’t understand why anyone would use a service like XCancel, which effectively helps maintain the cultural relevance of X. On a practical level, I’m also wondering what consistent legal standard people want when it comes to things like terms of service and individuals' copyright. It's unworkable to maintain one rule for the awesome people we might like and and another rule for the horrible des…

It's because X is chosen (wrongfully) as the main communications channel of all kinds of important public institutions and people (police departments, city administrations, politicians, etc.). Of course that's a real issue since the whole thing is login gated and inaccessible. But unfortunately it is the reality. So I think something like XCancel is needed.

Well, I stopped using Shitter first. Then I stopped using xCancel as a conduit for Shitter. Never happier.

IF those public institutions want to to connect with all their constituents, then move to a better platform. Not the other way around.

Re: XCancel service is suspended until further notice

#254

Post by brainwad »

lesuorac wrote: post #250
brainwad wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bartz v Anthropic. Though the plaintiffs did get something, it was because of the piracy to the original works (competing against the legal market for the books), not the use of them to train the LLM.

Bartz is an author though. Is X claiming ownership of the posts people make because pretty much every single social media site doesn't so they have section 230 protection.

They can just round up some friendly users and sue under their names. Starting with their own corporate accounts?

Re: XCancel service is suspended until further notice

#255

Post by sekh60 »

rimunroe wrote: post #226
27183 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't pretend to understand law, mostly it just doesn't make sense at all.

Could you elaborate in what way you find the law mostly doesn't make sense? It has to be flexible in order to work with actual humans. Why should visiting a page on your computer count as copying? Usually when we talk about copying it's someone making a duplicate so it can be accessed later. Only a very technical user is going to be diving into their cache to view that content after the fact. The vast majority of peo…

I can't remember the court case, but Blizzard did argue and win in court that WoW Glider's producers violated copyright law. If I recall correctly violating the TOS meant that an unauthorized copy made by executing the file chasing it to load WoW into RAM was created.

Re: XCancel service is suspended until further notice

#256

Post by darkwater »

brainwad wrote: post #251
darkwater wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what would be a read-only version of X like XCancel compete against, exactly? Ads impressions? That would be the only possible thing yet they don't add any ads.

It's depriving X of impressions that they could monetise, no? Xcancel doesn't have to make money itself, it just has to impair the rights of the copyright holder. Otherwise piracy would also be legal as long as it were non-profit...

> Otherwise piracy would also be legal as long as it were non-profit...

Which is in a few jurisdictions, or at least is not prosecuted if it's for personal use. Also, according to your definition, the creator of uBlock Origin or any other adblock system should be sued in the same way, because they are depriving $ADS_CORP of their precious impressions.

Re: XCancel service is suspended until further notice

#257

Post by brainwad »

darkwater wrote: post #256
brainwad wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's depriving X of impressions that they could monetise, no? Xcancel doesn't have to make money itself, it just has to impair the rights of the copyright holder. Otherwise piracy would also be legal as long as it were non-profit...

> Otherwise piracy would also be legal as long as it were non-profit... Which is in a few jurisdictions, or at least is not prosecuted if it's for personal use. Also, according to your definition, the creator of uBlock Origin or any other adblock system should be sued in the same way, because they are depriving $ADS_CORP of their precious impressions.

Well, adblockers don't copy the copyrighted content. They just control how it's rendered on the user's machine. Copyright cares about making copies and especially distributing them.

Re: XCancel service is suspended until further notice

#258

Post by wahnfrieden »

roosterIllusi0n wrote: post #179
simianparrot wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the users of X consent to XCancel copying their posts to their servers?

Why can't they distill twitter when AI companies distill everything including twitter? Distilling is copying and redistributing.

No it’s not

Re: XCancel service is suspended until further notice

#260

Post by burnte »

dismalaf wrote: post #244
zqwt3k wrote: post #109

Thanks Elon, now we know that scraping is illegal! Very good to clarify that for future proceedings against the AI thieves.

Pretty sure it's legal when you do it for your own use (same as browsing a website) but it's illegal to redistribute web scraped results.

It's not that cut and dry or else search engines wouldn't be legal. It depends on how much is used, for what context, etc. This very well may wind up being fair use.
Post reply on HN