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

Twitter prepares for cull of inactive users

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 266 posts

Re: Twitter prepares for cull of inactive users

#231

Post by icebraining »

ryanmercer wrote: post #187
vthriller wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why then embed tweet as an image if you're going to copy its text anyway?

So when twitter changes an API, or is down, and someone happens upon your page they can still see what you intended to include. Also if you're documenting something like John Smith said "Kill all Muppets, they're taking human jobs" and his publicist goes "John, you really need to delete that tweet" and he does, you can show a screenshot of it to prevent revisionist history.

We're not talking about using the API, but whether to prefer copying the tweet as a screenshot+text or just the text.

Re: Twitter prepares for cull of inactive users

#232

Post by icebraining »

notatoad wrote: post #110
Laforet wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I really don't like the recent trend of third party sites dynamically embedding tweets on their own page when a screenshot plus direct link could have sufficed. The internet has already lost a great deal of its past with many historical image hosts that went down or rogue (looking at you Photobucket). Why are people making the same mistake again? BTW Facebook have had the option to memorialize the profile…

doesn't the default twitter embed include the original text of the tweet in the embed code, and then just dynamically load in the like/retweet counts and branding? at least that's the way it looks when they load on a ridiculously slow internet connection, i've never actually looked at the embed code.

Yes, you're right. Of course, images and quoted tweets also get loaded dynamically, and the text may be hard to understand without those.

Re: Twitter prepares for cull of inactive users

#233

Post by icebraining »

austincheney wrote: post #216
roywiggins wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DoJ lawyers have argued otherwise in court. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/government_says_trump...

But what did the court confirm? In a more practical context I was in CENTCOM supporting troops in Syria when news of complete withdraw stunned the world via Twitter. The military did not act on a tweet. No formal change in policy in the government occurs via tweet. In a more clear example remember back when Trump ordered, via tweet, the military will ban all transgender persons from military service? The military ign…

The court confirmed that the Twitter account was used for official communications with the public (and therefore couldn't be arbitrarily restricted).

Does the military act on press releases? I would think both have importance based on how everyone else reacts to them, not because they serve as internal communication channels for the government.

Re: Twitter prepares for cull of inactive users

#234

Post by Frondo »

jacquesm wrote: post #226
Frondo wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it be? We might not be running out bits, but keeping those bits maintained takes effort; it doesn't happen by magic. and I can't think of any form of identifier that guarantees uniqueness; even the stone markings on graveyards eventually weather away.

Because bits aren't stone markings on graveyards. If you want they can last as long as the service does, which is a fine cut-off. Otherwise you get the same trouble with every other kind of method of authentication: after your ID is recycled whoever picks it up again even after it has been carefully scrubbed will inherit all the inbound links and so on. That doesn't really happen with gravestones.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm looking for something more than "it's possible to do this."

Or rather, I don't think there's a need to go to such an extent to preserve old usernames and histories. I think it'd be sufficient to let archivists at whatever data they wanted, and return the names to the churn.

Re: Twitter prepares for cull of inactive users

#235

Post by icebraining »

lazyjones wrote: post #204
bfirsh wrote: post #105

This is actually useful for me. The name of my new company is taken by a 10 year old account that has never tweeted, and I haven’t managed to find somebody at Twitter who can get the name for me. Does anybody know what’s going to happen to the names? Are they going to become available to register on 11th Dec? I hope somebody isn’t waiting there with a dictionary to squat them all...

Conversely, it's problematic for me - my Twitter account is up for grabs and someone might impersonate me, assisted by several mentions of the account on old pages.

Why is your account up for grabs? Are you unable to login and confirm you're active?

Re: Twitter prepares for cull of inactive users

#236

Post by jacquesm »

Frondo wrote: post #234
jacquesm wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because bits aren't stone markings on graveyards. If you want they can last as long as the service does, which is a fine cut-off. Otherwise you get the same trouble with every other kind of method of authentication: after your ID is recycled whoever picks it up again even after it has been carefully scrubbed will inherit all the inbound links and so on. That doesn't really happen with gravestones.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm looking for something more than "it's possible to do this." Or rather, I don't think there's a need to go to such an extent to preserve old usernames and histories. I think it'd be sufficient to let archivists at whatever data they wanted, and return the names to the churn.

They're not names, they're identifiers. There is absolutely no shortage of those and Twitter threads in their original form have all kinds of uses. Court cases, keeping the web in one piece, reference material, claims of prior art and so on. The archives can not be searched and that makes them much harder to use for that purpose.

Our company is pretty handy in digging up stuff but you'd be surprised how much of the web is rotting away while you're staring at it and every time that happens there is a fair chance we lose something, forever. It need not be that way.

Imagine we'd have a day-to-day account of the lives of the people from 500 years ago, and that you could home in on whatever individual from that time stuck on the web. I personally think that unless the author removes it these content farms owe it to the creators that gave them the content in the first place to at least support and store that content until copyright on the content runs out.

Re: Twitter prepares for cull of inactive users

#237

Post by icebraining »

alecco wrote: post #164
someonehere wrote: post #107

I worked at Twitter back in the early days. I left because I had an inkling there were tons of fake accounts and bot accounts. I thought at some point this would nosedive the company because Facebook’s growth at the time was all about how many active users they had. Twitter seemed to have too many accounts that weren’t justifiably real. A few years later I Had conversation at another job with coworkers and told them…

I always wondered why doesn't Twitter do this to purge those bot accounts. They can even do a money-back request to the payment processor afterwards as the service is breaking laws.

Breaking TOS, not necessarily breaking laws.

Re: Twitter prepares for cull of inactive users

#238

Post by austincheney »

icebraining wrote: post #233
austincheney wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what did the court confirm? In a more practical context I was in CENTCOM supporting troops in Syria when news of complete withdraw stunned the world via Twitter. The military did not act on a tweet. No formal change in policy in the government occurs via tweet. In a more clear example remember back when Trump ordered, via tweet, the military will ban all transgender persons from military service? The military ign…

The court confirmed that the Twitter account was used for official communications with the public (and therefore couldn't be arbitrarily restricted). Does the military act on press releases? I would think both have importance based on how everyone else reacts to them, not because they serve as internal communication channels for the government.

A tweet is not a press release and neither of those are lawful orders. Congressmen, for example, have numerous options for communicating officially with their constituents. That communication is not an indication of lawful actions or policy though.

Its like comparing the correspondence of a legal action from the government to a campaign rally. Just because many people in the public cannot tell the difference does not make them equivalent.

Re: Twitter prepares for cull of inactive users

#239

Post by kick »

paul7986 wrote: post #112
kick wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was younger, it was a fun hobby to help people with.

Cool idea, thanks! I actually just gained access to that email and unfortunately since I only used it once years ago it was wiped. Darn, I hope they don't wipe my account... there is no support .. premium support even as Id pay to have access and use it again.

If it was wiped but you now have access to it, just send the recovery email anyway. Companies can't check if an address was deleted and then remade.

Re: Twitter prepares for cull of inactive users

#240

Post by roywiggins »

austincheney wrote: post #216
roywiggins wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DoJ lawyers have argued otherwise in court. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/government_says_trump...

But what did the court confirm? In a more practical context I was in CENTCOM supporting troops in Syria when news of complete withdraw stunned the world via Twitter. The military did not act on a tweet. No formal change in policy in the government occurs via tweet. In a more clear example remember back when Trump ordered, via tweet, the military will ban all transgender persons from military service? The military ign…

The Secretary of the Navy tried to ignore an order-by-tweet last week and he's been fired.

People who don't act on Trump's tweets can do so, but when he follows up by firing people who don't, that's something of a signal that they're meant to be taken as orders.

Post reply on HN