New media handler

[jztemple2]

OK, this might not have anything to do with this thread, but they tell me the only stupid questions are the ones you don't ask

So how come I've been getting the YouTube previews in my thread for Door Kickers 2, up until the latest post which now only shows the link, not the preview. Am I doing something wrong? Did something change?

[LordMortis]

Try edit and save. Likely you were a victim of bad timing.

[jztemple2]

OK, this might not have anything to do with this thread, but they tell me the only stupid questions are the ones you don't ask

So how come I've been getting the YouTube previews in my thread for Door Kickers 2, up until the latest post which now only shows the link, not the preview. Am I doing something wrong? Did something change?

Never mind, I fixed it by not putting a carriage return ahead of the link. Weird.

[Sudy]

Autoplay is a horrible idea, I can't believe we're voting on this!

Fwiw, we're not. We're voting on auto parsing.

Fine. Have it your way! I'll just mute my tabs.

[Blackhawk]

Autoplay is a horrible idea, I can't believe we're voting on this!

Fwiw, we're not. We're voting on auto parsing.

Funny - we all chimed in on each others' posts, even though it wasn't a thing.

That's what happens when we get rid of the fact checkers.

[TheMix]

Just tell me what to do.

[Rumpy]

Auto-parsing just means the media gets loaded within the post. Auto-playing would mean the media would start autoplaying on entry to the thread, which has never been the case on the forum.

[Zaxxon]

1) This is awesome--thanks.
2) Bluesky embedding is more important than every other new embed source combined at this stage of our end-game democracy. We really need that added if at all possible.

[FishPants]

1) This is awesome--thanks.
2) Bluesky embedding is more important than every other new embed source combined at this stage of our end-game democracy. We really need that added if at all possible.

I think it's working now.. although last time it ran for awhile then horked hard. Test it and lets see.

[Zaxxon]

Success! Thank you, sir!

[Isgrimnur]

I'm'a be petty and ask that we remove Twitter from the automatic parsing in the media handler.

[Blackhawk]

I'm good with that.

[Zaxxon]

No objections here.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I'm'a be petty and ask that we remove Twitter from the automatic parsing in the media handler.

I, for one, strongly support the idea of 'more speech, not enforced silence' and vehemently oppose this notion.

[Zaxxon]

I'm'a be petty and ask that we remove Twitter from the automatic parsing in the media handler.

I, for one, strongly support the idea of 'more speech, not enforced silence' and vehemently oppose this notion.

Meh, we’re talking about removing automatic parsing for those not interested in clicking through to the hellsite, not enforcing silence. Encouraging less toxic sourcing, IMO.

But I grok and respect where you’re coming from on this.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I'm'a be petty and ask that we remove Twitter from the automatic parsing in the media handler.

I, for one, strongly support the idea of 'more speech, not enforced silence' and vehemently oppose this notion.

Meh, we’re talking about removing automatic parsing for those not interested in clicking through to the hellsite, not enforcing silence. Encouraging less toxic sourcing, IMO.

But I grok and respect where you’re coming from on this.

We're talking about intentionally eliminating the ability to automatically parse Twitter or X.com links from our message board, which, like it or not, remains a popular and sometimes important source of information and breaking news in today's day and age (also, not everything posted there is necessarily political). The concept of "toxic sourcing" also seems tenuous and inherently fallacious, hinging on subjective judgments about the credibility and ethics of sources, rather than any objective, measurable standards. However, no one is compelled to click through on any Twitter/X.com link if they don't wish to do so. I personally recommend using either the Xcancel.com Redirector (Chrome) or X Cancelled (Firefox) add-on, which allow you to view everything on Twitter or X.com without an X.com account. This can be a useful solution for those who want to access the information without the potential drawbacks of directly engaging with the original platform.

[jztemple2]

I guess I'm not bothered by the whole toxic X thing as I just mostly use it to view the news feed from my local Spectrum 24 hour cable news station, which is much like what I use Facebook for, except that on Facebook I follow other, non-toxic sources. So I'd prefer we keep the ability to automatically parse it.

[LordMortis]

I get AB's point. At the same time, witbhout going from meta to R&P, I can still say I wouldn't miss Xhitter embedded parsing even this >< much and selfishly would rather reclaim browsing the real estate or having my presence actively interacting with the site, especially if on the rare occasion I am browsing from my phone. As example, I appreciate all of the effort Grif consistently goes through to find news I don't (didn't?) get anywhere else. I still won't click on his shares. I find value in Grif bringing me news but no value added by the source and would rather his sources move somewhere else and maybe the might others interacted with it less. Again, that's all just my selfishness.

[Zaxxon]

We're talking about intentionally eliminating the ability to automatically parse Twitter or X.com links from our message board

Yes, this is what I said. .

, which, like it or not, remains a popular and sometimes important source of information and breaking news in today's day and age (also, not everything posted there is necessarily political). The concept of "toxic sourcing" also seems tenuous and inherently fallacious, hinging on subjective judgments about the credibility and ethics of sources, rather than any objective, measurable standards.

The site itself is toxic. I don't view this as 'tenuous or inherently fallacious' anymore, as it's not a subjective judgment to observe that Twitter is very specifically boosting far-right, nazi, engagement-baiting, etc content to feeds that have not expressed interest in such. Like, it's not a guess at this stage of the game--this has been well-documented by many sources over a long timespan. I meant no allegation of toxicity about specific people still choosing to post on Twitter.

However, no one is compelled to click through on any Twitter/X.com link if they don't wish to do so.

Just as no one is prevented from clicking through should parsing be disabled.

[Anonymous Bosch]

We're talking about intentionally eliminating the ability to automatically parse Twitter or X.com links from our message board

Yes, this is what I said. .

, which, like it or not, remains a popular and sometimes important source of information and breaking news in today's day and age (also, not everything posted there is necessarily political). The concept of "toxic sourcing" also seems tenuous and inherently fallacious, hinging on subjective judgments about the credibility and ethics of sources, rather than any objective, measurable standards.

The site itself is toxic. I don't view this as 'tenuous or inherently fallacious' anymore, as it's not a subjective judgment to observe that Twitter is very specifically boosting far-right, nazi, engagement-baiting, etc content to feeds that have not expressed interest in such. Like, it's not a guess at this stage of the game--this has been well-documented by many sources over a long timespan. I meant no allegation of toxicity about specific people still choosing to post on Twitter.

While I understand your apprehension about the algorithmic promotion of content and ideological opinions you may oppose on Twitter or X.com, labelling anything and everything posted on that specific platform as inherently 'toxic' oversimplifies a multifaceted issue. It's important to recognise that not all content posted there is necessarily harmful or advocating the Holocaust, and the best remedy for disagreeable speech is more speech, not soft censorship, because…

[LordMortis]

Forget the exposure. I don't want my Internet presence to be part of their analytics and engagement metrics. The difference between a url and an embed is the difference between Leon getting nothing from me and him getting anything from me. At least Zuck and Alphabet give me something for their monitoring of my presence and until very recently held themselves accountable to the public for their business model.

[Zaxxon]

At the risk of you continuing not to grok what I’m actually saying, AB, no one is suggesting removing speech. I am also explicitly not labeling ‘anything and everything posted on that platform’ as toxic. The platform itself is the toxic thing. And I don’t really consider that a subjective opinion at this point. (Your disagreement is stipulated and accepted in advance.)

Platforming it a bit less by removing auto parsing and requiring folks to click through if interested is not removing speech.

Twitter would be exactly where Bluesky was prior to this very week.

Also, I don’t think anyone here is particularly tied to this actually happening. Someone mentioned the idea, and a couple of us said ‘sounds fine.’

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, I mean we could argue about some of the (potentially offensive) things posted on Youtube and shared here. Maybe offensive is the wrong word. Questionable? Granted, Youtube isn't signal boosting Nazis, but as someone that still uses X to get information related to my profession, I've not completely abandoned it yet. Closer than I was a year ago, but it still has limited utility (for me) as a way to get information. I don't post anything to it, read comments or signal boost, but I do passively consume it.

Anyway, I just wanted to chime in as I have (and likely still would) post X links as I see them - if they're applicable and I'm unable to get the information elsewhere.

[LordMortis]

Of if it breaks, yet again for the I don't know how manyth time, meh, to fixing it?

[FishPants]

Not that I have a particular opinion on this whether we do or don't, I want to clarify a few things:

The auto embed with URL (versus using MEDIA opening and closing tags) is a global flag - we either parse all relevant media sites automatically or we don't; it is not per site.

What IS per site is what I will auto parse and/or include in MEDIA tag compatibility. So I could turn off Twitter/X, and that way it wouldn't auto parse (but it also wouldn't embed in the MEDIA tags either). You could still close it in URL flags to make it clickable; but embedding capability would 100% be gone.

Just to clarify the technical capabilities.

[Blackhawk]

It's not about hiding views, it's about limiting the direct connections and indirect traffic for Musk and his de-facto administration. If the next year continues like the past week and a half, I feel that Twitter is going to be bordering on a dangerous site to object on.

However, this is a completely different type of policy decision than usually gets made around here, and has lots of implications and impacts. I'd strongly encourage, if the possibility is seriously considered, putting it to the community as a poll.

[Zaxxon]

However, this is a completely different type of policy decision than usually gets made around here, and has lots of implications and impacts. I'd strongly encourage, if the possibility is seriously considered, putting it to the community as a poll.

Seconded.

[ImLawBoy]

Been thinking about this a bit since it first started. While I don't use Twitter (nuked my account some time back) and don't support it or its owner, there are people here who continue to use it for one reason or another. Sometimes they post things from Twitter that I find interesting or helpful (like Smoove posting some health info or Grifman posting a news report), but I'd rather not have to click on a Twitter link to find out what it is.

While I get not wanting to add to Twitter's statistics by parsing their links here, it's not like we're Reddit and going to have a potential impact on Twitter with a ban, whether soft (by not parsing links) or hard.

I totally get and respect the positions of those wanting to stop the auto-parsing. For me, anyway, the value of keeping it outweighs the value of stopping it.

(This is not meant to be a final word or stop the conversation - just me adding my thoughts, which are, of course, subject to change.)

[Sudy]

This is cutting six-pack rings to save the turtles, but I agree with the spirit and intention. I don't think it would have a meaningful impact, but if it even just makes folks feel a little better it's worthwhile.

[The Meal]

Easier to scroll by an embedded twitter link than it is to click into one, for those times I'm curious. (And let's be real, I'd never actually click into the link and would, instead, remain curious.)

I get the optics behind being on a forum which is stigginit to Xitter, but if Panty O'Fishness has any concerns about implementing some additional customization for those optics, I'm in the hard pass department.

[Sudy]

I feel like we're a panel of advisors in the menu of a 90s simulation game delivering canned single-line policy recommendations.

[Blackhawk]

Panty O'Fishness

[FishPants]

I can put it to a poll - like I said I don't particularly care - but the solution assuming the poll numbers want it pulled means that you will have to tag a twitter link with URL tags.

I'll see if I can get something up as a poll that's a clear option and run it for a week.

[ImLawBoy]

Any poll at this point would be advisory/non-binding I think.

[Isgrimnur]

Can we call the poll axeTwit?

[Anonymous Bosch]

This is cutting six-pack rings to save the turtles, but I agree with the spirit and intention. I don't think it would have a meaningful impact, but if it even just makes folks feel a little better it's worthwhile.

The reasoning you've outlined here seems reminiscent of the Politician's syllogism: "It's ineffective and won't make a difference, but we should do it anyway":



Suffice to say, I remain decidedly unconvinced that soft censorship is warranted in this scenario, even if it might offer a cozy blanket of reassurance to some.

[Blackhawk]

I'm not supporting it because it's doing something for something's sake. I do not trust X (nor have I), but since the campaign I've gone from not embracing it to actively avoiding it.

I'm supporting the idea, not as censorship, not as change for the sake of change, but because I want to cut as many ties between myself and X as possible. Just automatically embedding links adds all sorts of ties - tracking, traffic, data collection, etc.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I'm supporting the idea, not as censorship, not as change for the sake of change, but because I want to cut as many ties between myself and X as possible. Just automatically embedding links adds all sorts of ties - tracking, traffic, data collection, etc.

Not necessarily; for anyone genuinely concerned over this, I would again recommend using either the Xcancel.com Redirector (Chrome) or X Cancelled (Firefox) add-on, which allow you to view everything on Twitter or X.com without an X.com account or ever directly engaging with the original platform at all. If you're super-paranoid, it's effortless to block anything and everything to do with Twitter or X.com using uBlock Origin (or whatever equivalent adblocker you have installed) without impeding upon the ability of others to post and share relevant information from a customary platform.

[Blackhawk]

Which if people did the oft-requested posting of an image instead, or using an unroller for threads, wouldn't be an issue.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Which if people did the oft-requested posting of an image instead, or using an unroller for threads, wouldn't be an issue.

Again, this isn't an issue at all if you heed the advice I posted above.