Poll: Should we stop auto parsing and embedding Twitter/X Posts?

[FishPants]

From the media handler discussion in Meta I took the request to put this to a poll, to get a read on the room on how people felt about this.

Should we stop auto embedding twitter/X links in posts (this includes the MEDIA tags) - they can still be posted using URL tags that makes a clickable link to the post but it won't embed inside of the post.

Note: This would be on a go forward basis, historical posts will still have embedding until/if ever a time came that all posts were re-parsed (unlikely to happen ever).

Poll options set:

Poll is open for 7 days, you cannot change your vote

[LordMortis]

As much as I don't want them embedded for me and for the general metrics of their company and I'm tempted to vote my selfishness, I'm going to sit this one out. However, if that's the will of the board and management takes that under advisement and acts on it, I'll be happy to have it gone.

[El Guapo]

The point of removing the embedding would be to drive fewer pings / traffic to twitter / X, is that right?

[Unagi]

That would be my understanding.

The embedding makes a call to Twitter for anyone who loads the OO forum page (click it, or not). With it being changed to just a URL , it would only give Twitter a 'hit' when someone wanted to click the link.

[Unagi]

I'm going to sit this one out.

I mean, I get it - but, if you have any other levers out there one can pull - let me know.

[Anonymous Bosch]

To reiterate what I said in the 'New media handler' thread: I strongly support the idea of 'more speech, not enforced silence,' and firmly oppose the notion of soft censorship, i.e. purposefully removing or limiting the ability to automatically parse links to one of the world's largest social media platforms and most-visited websites from our message board. Especially if the rationalization for so doing largely boils down to ideological pique with its Chairman.

Whether we like it or not, X.com or Twitter remains a popular and often essential source of information and breaking news in today’s day and age, and it's important to recognise that not all content posted there is necessarily harmful or even political in nature. Even if you despise the viewpoints of its Chairman, the best remedy for disagreeable speech is more speech, not soft censorship, because…

[stessier]

Speech is not being stopped - it's just a little harder to see. Think of it as spoiler tags for Twitter. Anyone who wants it can click and anyone is free to summarize the tweet in text. Twitter just doesn't get the automatic views Everytime the page is loaded.

[gilraen]

You can use screenshots of the X post instead of linking to the actual post. It's more work but it lets you share the information without driving traffic to Xhitter. If you don't have an account, the link is useless to you anyway, you can't see any of the replies or follow-up posts if they are in the same thread.

Most (but not all) major subreddits that banned X links still allow screenshots specifically because there may not be another readily available source for whatever news you are trying to share.

[LordMortis]

Speech is not being stopped - it's just a little harder to see. Think of it as spoiler tags for Twitter. Anyone who wants it can click and anyone is free to summarize the tweet in text. Twitter just doesn't get the automatic views Everytime the page is loaded.

That's why he tags it soft censorship AFACT (IMO without recognizing the deafening nature of more speech by the "free speech absolutist" propaganda of the billionaire class should also be considered soft censorship as expressed in FB, Google, Xhitter, Cambridge and on and on and on...) I'd concur, it's soft censorship but I've got a bit of Alex in me.

[stessier]

Except that's a made up concept. It's not censorship - copy the text of the tweet in quotes - no problem. There is no issue with the speech. The issue is with the views going back to Twitter to count.

Some people already do similar by spoilering text for people who can't see the link. This just puts the onus on the person sharing. That's not censorship.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Speech is not being stopped - it's just a little harder to see. Think of it as spoiler tags for Twitter. Anyone who wants it can click and anyone is free to summarize the tweet in text. Twitter just doesn't get the automatic views Everytime the page is loaded.

Yes, that is the definition of 'soft censorship':

Soft Censorship (also known as quiet censorship or self-censorship) occurs when materials, programs, or services are purposefully removed, limited, or never offered at all despite being something that would serve a community.

[AWS260]

I would like to formally apologize for posting this in 2015.

Is there a way to embed a tweet in a post, other than just cutting-and-pasting the text as a quote? It would be nice to be able to embed formatted tweets.

Re. "soft censorship," this step does not remotely meet that definition. No one would be prevented from sharing content from Twitter. It would simply be marginally less convenient to do so.

[Hrothgar]

By that logic, none of the "voting integrity" laws restrict voting. The just make it marginally less convenient to vote.

[El Guapo]

Speech is not being stopped - it's just a little harder to see. Think of it as spoiler tags for Twitter. Anyone who wants it can click and anyone is free to summarize the tweet in text. Twitter just doesn't get the automatic views Everytime the page is loaded.

Yes, that is the definition of 'soft censorship':

Soft Censorship (also known as quiet censorship or self-censorship) occurs when materials, programs, or services are purposefully removed, limited, or never offered at all despite being something that would serve a community.

FWIW while I voted "no" on this poll, if yes prevails I would view that as the community declining to do business because of his noxious and wildly illegal conduct. If he just had noxious views that would be different, but he's actively subverting the U.S. government and hurting lots of people. Twitter is unfortunately still a useful place to get information and news, so on balance I'm reluctantly in favor of just keeping functionality as is, but it's a reasonable question.

[Blackhawk]

AB, I appreciate your views on this, and I'm glad that we have some strong, well-argued dissent. Your post in the original discussion was enough that I sat down and had a long, hard think about the issue.

Even if you despise the viewpoints of its Chairman, the best remedy for disagreeable speech is more speech, not soft censorship, because…

And yet, the more people who abandon Twitter, and the more who stop providing passthrough traffic to Twitter (which is what parsing links does), the less powerful Twitter becomes, the less power Musk has, the less ability there is to spread propaganda. It could be seen as soft censorship of the source (but the speech itself is still welcome), but it could also be seen as refusing to associate with a malevolent business, as a boycott, and as a protest.

[ImLawBoy]

To clarify, at this point the poll is informational and not a hard yes/no. In other words, we won't automatically just follow the results.

Also, I suggest we allow people to change their votes. People may vote one way, read the discussions, and then change their minds.

For my convenience, I'll copy and paste what I put in the other thread.

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.

I'll add here that I absolutely do think this falls under soft censorship. That's not to say we can't do it - we're private and can censor soft or hard. Making it harder to post a certain type of content, such as by requiring screenshots for a visual or requiring readers to click on a link instead of seeing it inline, is absolutely soft censorship. It's not hard censorship, obviously, as there are still ways to post the information. But that's the distinction between soft and hard censorship.

[Anonymous Bosch]

AB, I appreciate your views on this, and I'm glad that we have some strong, well-argued dissent. Your post in the original discussion was enough that I sat down and had a long, hard think about the issue.

Even if you despise the viewpoints of its Chairman, the best remedy for disagreeable speech is more speech, not soft censorship, because…

And yet, the more people who abandon Twitter, and the more who stop providing passthrough traffic to Twitter (which is what parsing links does), the less powerful Twitter becomes, the less power Musk has, the less ability there is to spread propaganda. It could be seen as soft censorship of the source (but the speech itself is still welcome), but it could also be seen as refusing to associate with a malevolent business, as a boycott, and as a protest.

If this is strictly about impeding the ability to spread social media propaganda, what exactly are the specific criteria for which social media platforms get to be automatically parsed here and which do not? Because realistically, every popular social media platform tends to become a magnet for the spread of propaganda, Bluesky included:

• Russian Malign Influence Campaigns Expand Onto Bluesky
• Bluesky could become target of foreign disinformation, experts warn

Nonetheless, that certainly wouldn't motivate me to advocate intentionally removing or limiting the ability to automatically parse links to Bluesky here, either.

As for boycotting or protesting a "malevolent business", that's largely subjective and ignores the reality that plenty of OO users may not view it in such a negative light or necessarily share your perspective. Rather than enforcing a community-wide OO boycott or protest of Twitter, individuals are better suited to take personal responsibility for the information they consume and share. By being critical of the sources they engage with and verifying the accuracy of the information they share, individuals can more effectively counter what they perceive to be propaganda and misinformation without resorting to community-wide soft censorship.

[Unagi]

AB, I appreciate your views on this, and I'm glad that we have some strong, well-argued dissent. Your post in the original discussion was enough that I sat down and had a long, hard think about the issue.

Even if you despise the viewpoints of its Chairman, the best remedy for disagreeable speech is more speech, not soft censorship, because…

And yet, the more people who abandon Twitter, and the more who stop providing passthrough traffic to Twitter (which is what parsing links does), the less powerful Twitter becomes, the less power Musk has, the less ability there is to spread propaganda. It could be seen as soft censorship of the source (but the speech itself is still welcome), but it could also be seen as refusing to associate with a malevolent business, as a boycott, and as a protest.

If this is strictly about impeding the ability to spread social media propaganda, what exactly are the specific criteria for which social media platforms get to be automatically parsed here and which do not? Because realistically, every popular social media platform tends to become a magnet for the spread of propaganda, Bluesky included:

• Russian Malign Influence Campaigns Expand Onto Bluesky
• Bluesky could become target of foreign disinformation, experts warn

Nonetheless, that certainly wouldn't motivate me to advocate intentionally removing or limiting the ability to automatically parse links to Bluesky here, either.

As for boycotting or protesting a "malevolent business", that's largely subjective and ignores the reality that plenty of OO users may not view it in such a negative light or necessarily share your perspective. Rather than enforcing a community-wide OO boycott or protest of Twitter, individuals are better suited to take personal responsibility for the information they consume and share. By being critical of the sources they engage with and verifying the accuracy of the information they share, individuals can more effectively counter what they perceive to be propaganda and misinformation without resorting to community-wide soft censorship.

IMO, it's to stop giving Twitter undo 'currency' by way of 'clicks' or 'views'.

It's not about asking other people to stop using it, it's about not forcing me to give Twitter a click just because I load an OO page. It's not censorship related. It's boycott related.

If there was a movement to boycott YouTube I could see giving people the option to ask to join it, and stop those from loading, for instance.

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, I voted "no" but I can't really argue against the idea of making sure it can't generate traffic revenue/data back to X when it's auto-parsed here.

No one would be blocked from posting a naked link to X in the same way that no one is blocked from posting links to Fox News or the New York Post or OANN (either naked or a coded link). I think that would be much more problematic, though to be clear I don't think linking to Nazi propaganda sites is a great idea either.

[Kraken]

Tough decision. On one hand, I despise Musk and his megaphone and the extreme harm that it's doing. I will never click a twitter link and wish people wouldn't post them. I feel like if there's any small thing we can do to weaken it, we should do that.

OTOH, I'm sympathetic to the argument against "soft censorship."

On the third hand, how much traffic does an OO link send to twitter? A few dozen hits, maybe? I don't think we matter to Leon.

I voted No but kinda hope the Yeses win.

[Pyperkub]

Voted yes.

Outside of the other topics discussed here, The embeds don't work currently for me due to privacy setups on my browser, so as is, they are worthless.

[Rumpy]

I'm Ok either way, but I value seeing what's reflected in all media, if only to stay informed to the points of view being expressed. In that manner, it helps to be informed of all opinions even if we don't necessarily agree with them.

[Victoria Raverna]

What is the goal? Want to censor all twitter posts?

Or just want to deny Musk some advertising income?

[Sudy]

I just can't support autoplay, sorry.

[Blackhawk]

What is the goal? Want to censor all twitter posts?

Or just want to deny Musk some advertising income?

I think that's been answered pretty thoroughly in the thread.

[Smoove_B]

I just can't support autoplay, sorry.

[Unagi]

On the third hand, how much traffic does an OO link send to twitter? A few dozen hits, maybe? I don't think we matter to Leon.

Our Elon Musk thread has 14 pages and 64,000 views. So - a page may be viewed ~5k times. Not a few dozen.

[Sudy]

I reiterate from the other thread that even if an action doesn't have a meaningful practical impact, if it makes the majority of people feel better that itself may be a worthwhile result.

There's a reason you wait for the cop to turn away before you flip him off.

[gbasden]

No one would be blocked from posting a naked link to X in the same way that no one is blocked from posting links to Fox News or the New York Post or OANN (either naked or a coded link). I think that would be much more problematic, though to be clear I don't think linking to Nazi propaganda sites is a great idea either.

At this point I would argue that all of those are more or less fascist propaganda. I am all in favor of doing everything possible to deny support to Nazis.

[Punisher]

Question.
Does embedding here count as the same currency as a full click through from a link?
IE: Is it it worse to click a link or have it embedded or is it the same?

I would think that a click through is worse because it requires active engagement which can lead to other clicks.

[Kraken]

On the third hand, how much traffic does an OO link send to twitter? A few dozen hits, maybe? I don't think we matter to Leon.

Our Elon Musk thread has 14 pages and 64,000 views. So - a page may be viewed ~5k times. Not a few dozen.

Oy, I forgot about bots.

[Grifman]

Speech is not being stopped - it's just a little harder to see. Think of it as spoiler tags for Twitter. Anyone who wants it can click and anyone is free to summarize the tweet in text. Twitter just doesn't get the automatic views Everytime the page is loaded.

Not letting people express themselves in the manner in which they wish is censorship, plain and simple.

[stessier]

Speech is not being stopped - it's just a little harder to see. Think of it as spoiler tags for Twitter. Anyone who wants it can click and anyone is free to summarize the tweet in text. Twitter just doesn't get the automatic views Everytime the page is loaded.

Yes, that is the definition of 'soft censorship':

Soft Censorship (also known as quiet censorship or self-censorship) occurs when materials, programs, or services are purposefully removed, limited, or never offered at all despite being something that would serve a community.

Thank you for that - learn something new every day. I think it's incredibly stupid (edit: I can see where this might have some merit in some applications), but I acknowledge your term has a real meaning.

Let me introduce the concept of soft fascism. Soft fascism occurs when materials, programs or services are purposefully employed that support a program relying on views through no overt action of the user. (Definition definitely needs work)

Example - I load a web page that automatically loads tweets creating interactions on Twitter that can be used to justify their platform creating wealth for an individual actively working against the US Constitution. I didn't know the links were there - I have no option to opt out. It just happens. And yet there is a reasonable work around - a naked link and (if desired) a posted summary (which, incidentally, is something a number of members have been requesting forever). The message is not prevented or hidden. The extra effort of the potentially posting a summary I see as a reasonable tradeoff to the increased agency the rest of the community receives in deciding whether or not to click the link.

FWIW, I have not voted yet (I have also not clicked on a link or visited the site since 2022, so the idea that it is important is laughable to me). I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong. It's just such a small amount of friction that is being suggested to be put in place for the poster versus the much larger gain of not being forced to passively support that site that I don't see how the scales are anywhere even close to even, much less tilted toward allowing the link. When he wasn't actively crawling through the government, I had a different opinion. Now, though, I think it's a small but meaningful step.

[stessier]

On the third hand, how much traffic does an OO link send to twitter? A few dozen hits, maybe? I don't think we matter to Leon.

Thought experiment - every time you load a page, 1 penny will be spent to support global warming (not the fight against it, to actively increase global warming). Does it matter?

[Unagi]

Speech is not being stopped - it's just a little harder to see. Think of it as spoiler tags for Twitter. Anyone who wants it can click and anyone is free to summarize the tweet in text. Twitter just doesn't get the automatic views Everytime the page is loaded.

Not letting people express themselves in the manner in which they wish is censorship, plain and simple.

Really? I mean, do you really think that is what censorship is?
All manners of expression, without exception, shall be implemented, supported, and maintained by forum administrators or else they are censoring people?
What if the admin doesn't feel like installing/administrating the latest embedding code on the forum, and they wonder just how many people would mind if they blew it off and didn't do it?


No one would stop you or others from sharing a Twitter post, it just wouldn't force my PC to visit Twitter for the content. I'm confused why you are so adamant about doing that to people in such a small community that clearly don't want to do it?
Seriously.

[GreenGoo]

There are no free speech rights inside someone's home, and there are no free speech rights that mean we have to listen.

I don't care if people want to link twitter (pretty sure using the link tags would do this), but I'd prefer not to support the site just because someone posted something and an OO page loads.

You can have all the twitter you want, just not in my face please.

[Blackhawk]

Go ahead, post some porn. Tell the person here you like the least exactly what you think of them - and don't hold back. Post my address. Link to your favorite game piracy site. Hell, back on Gone Gold, we weren't allowed to even discuss software piracy beyond the very surface level because it was inconvenient for Rich, and we were more restricted on what we post here back when Rip was hosting OO because it was potentially bad for his business.

Some limits to our speech have always existed when there were good reasons for it. I don't think 'imperfect free speech' or the semantics of the label 'censorship' are what we should be debating. What we should be debating is if the reasons for doing this qualify as 'good reasons.' There are certainly valid points for and against.

[Alefroth]

Speech is not being stopped - it's just a little harder to see. Think of it as spoiler tags for Twitter. Anyone who wants it can click and anyone is free to summarize the tweet in text. Twitter just doesn't get the automatic views Everytime the page is loaded.

Not letting people express themselves in the manner in which they wish is censorship, plain and simple.

The way you're expressing yourself isn't changing at all, is it?

[GreenGoo]

If this is strictly about impeding the ability to spread social media propaganda,

Of course it's not strictly that.

[GreenGoo]

What is the goal? Want to censor all twitter posts?

Or just want to deny Musk some advertising income?

The goal is twitter sucks.