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

[Unagi]

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

Of course it's not strictly that.

I hadn't even thought of that aspect at all.

I'm not interested in protecting my eyes from something on Twitter. I'm interested in not giving them additional hits.

[RunningMn9]

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

I don’t really care one way or another, but this feels like an odd take. If I want to share a link to Twitter to express myself, I will be able to easily share a link to Twitter to express myself. I don’t feel entitled to be able to compel OO to do something extra with that link.

If people want to click the link based on what I say about the link, cool. If people don’t want to click the link based on what I say about the link, also cool.

When I see posts that are just links to Bluesky I don’t ever click on them (at least in Tapatalk, they aren’t being parsed and displaying anything for me other than the text of the link).

Are those people being censored because they can’t take away my agency on whether I click that link?

[LordMortis]

I'm not interested in protecting my eyes from something on Twitter. I'm interested in not giving them additional hits.

That's me. I took ABs advice and shut my browser's interaction with them down completely via ad blocker. If I have to have it embedded then I no longer want anything at all instead as a better option. I'm not smart enough to know how much of an insulation it provides but at some point I have to trust technology is doing what it purports to do or not use it at all.

Fox News getting so much money from cable subscriptions (including mine) than they were from ad revenue was what finally got me to cut the cord. The solution for me was not spend more money getting more speech it was to cut a minuscule amount of revenue and metrics they were taking against my will.

It's not for me kill Xhitter in already aging out wider OO community but if it were in my power to do so, I would kill it without reservation or regret.

[Victoria Raverna]

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.

It is not clear to me because the solution that is being voted on is for censorship but going to give Musk more income.

So if the goal is censorship, then the solution is suitable one.

If the goal is to deny income or not support Musk financially then the solution is counterproductive. It'll do the opposite.

[Victoria Raverna]

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

Or just want to deny Musk some advertising income?

The goal is twitter sucks.

Then censorship is the solution. And better censorship solution is to ban any link to twitter or X, not just stop auto parsing.

Stop auto parsing is going to give Musk some extra income when people click the link.

[Victoria Raverna]

BTW, if it is not clear. Twitter doesn't make any money from being embedded here.

Twitter make money when someone view the embedded post by click to open twitter.

So both auto parse or not, twitter only make money if you click it to view it at twitter's site.

So you auto parse then there is no need to view it at twitter's site. That'll actually deny money to twitter.

You don't auto parse and the only way to view it is to ciick to view at twitter's site. You're encouraging people to go to twitter's site. Which is going to give money to twitter.

So if you want to deny income, just ban link to twitter. Don't just stop auto parsing.

[Blackhawk]

Back that up, please.

[Victoria Raverna]

Look at that embedded post from twitter/X. If you don't click on it, can you tell me how twitter get revenue from you viewing it?

Indirectly it can help twitter but not directly if OO doesn't pay twitter to be able to embed it.

[Blackhawk]

They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.

[Punisher]

They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.

I posted the question earlier but don't tjink it got an answer.
Does Twitter get more, less, or the same money from an imbed vs a link actually clicked on?
Does clicking the link give them more once you land in the page and see everything there?

[Alefroth]

They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.

I posted the question earlier but don't tjink it got an answer.
Does Twitter get more, less, or the same money from an imbed vs a link actually clicked on?
Does clicking the link give them more once you land in the page and see everything there?

Embedding a Tweet gives them more money than simply displaying the link.

[Punisher]

They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.

I posted the question earlier but don't tjink it got an answer.
Does Twitter get more, less, or the same money from an imbed vs a link actually clicked on?
Does clicking the link give them more once you land in the page and see everything there?

Embedding a Tweet gives them more money than simply displaying the link.

Right, but is clicking the link worse than embedding?

[Alefroth]

They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.

I posted the question earlier but don't tjink it got an answer.
Does Twitter get more, less, or the same money from an imbed vs a link actually clicked on?
Does clicking the link give them more once you land in the page and see everything there?

Embedding a Tweet gives them more money than simply displaying the link.

Right, but is clicking the link worse than embedding?

I don't know, but a link doesn't get clicked simply by loading the page.

[Punisher]

They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.

I posted the question earlier but don't tjink it got an answer.
Does Twitter get more, less, or the same money from an imbed vs a link actually clicked on?
Does clicking the link give them more once you land in the page and see everything there?

Embedding a Tweet gives them more money than simply displaying the link.

Right, but is clicking the link worse than embedding?

I don't know, but a link doesn't get clicked simply by loading the page.

I understand that but if it happens to be a link with the only info on a topic then I can see people clicking on it to read it.
For example, if Twitter suddenly had an auction for original Golden Girls memorabilia that he doesn't already own, I can see hepcat clicking through.

[Alefroth]

Maybe they will and maybe they won't, but do you think they'll click the link every time they load the page?

[Blackhawk]

Twitter doesn't say where the money comes from. Some comes from advertising (actually going to the site), but a lot comes from selling data (which they get from the parsed links) and from view count (which they get from the parsed links.)

Does 1 person clicking a link give them more or less than 50 people loading the embedded tweet? No clue, and they're not going to tell us. It's also relevant that Twitter is getting the embedded benefit every time the page is loaded or refreshed, not just the first time (which is why I said 50 to 1 earlier - even if 1 in 10 follow the link, that same post will be loaded repeatedly, and on multiple devices per person.) That adds up. But both provide financing to Elon Musk and what he does, both promote his platform, making it more appealing for advertisers and more profitable. What doesn't help him is quoting or posting images (or finding the same info elsewhere), and I think that we're going to see fewer Twitter posts in general if they're not as simple as copy-paste (it takes effort to summarize, quote, or post an image.) That's the side benefit - it being less convenient encourages people to use it less.

[LordMortis]

Google promotes this link when it comes to revenue sources. I have no idea more idea if it is accurate than I does the AI that scraped from the site and presents it as an answer to my search.

https://www.tweetpeek.ai/post/how-does- ... 2024-guide

Data Licensing Services

Data licensing provides enterprise access to Twitter's vast repository of public conversations generating $570 million in 2021. The service includes:

Real-time data access for trend analysis
Historical data for pattern recognition
API access for third-party developers
Custom data solutions for business intelligence

Advertising Platform Deep Dive

Twitter's advertising platform generated $4.73 billion in revenue during 2022, offering advertisers sophisticated targeting options and diverse ad formats to reach specific audiences.

So all of the first Revenue and part of the second revenue is contributed to by embeds and they keep that data.

[Unagi]

For example, if Twitter suddenly had an auction for original Golden Girls memorabilia that he doesn't already own, I can see hepcat clicking through.

Yeah, but that would be a choice made by Hepcat and it would be fine.

[Victoria Raverna]

So I think the solution is not to stop auto parsing. If you want to deny their chance of making any money, then just ban any link to x or twitter.

[stessier]

So I think the solution is not to stop auto parsing. If you want to deny their chance of making any money, then just ban any link to x or twitter.

No - I'm not against others wanting to support Twitter (well, I am, but I defend that it is their choice to make). I just want to have the same option - something auto parsing prevents.

[LordMortis]

For anyone interested in >plonking< without asking the site to do something controversial, you might have to go deeper than blocking x and twitter and the embeds still seem to happen but without the content being presented. So far for me, blocking s9e.github.io seems to do the trick and doesn't block other embeds. I'm monitoring for unintended consequences but I've yet to see any. That block may do something huge for all I know but nothing I've seen yet. (and might not see because you know, blocking...)

The Internet tells me

https://github.com/s9e

Text formatting library that supports BBCode, HTML and other markup via plugins. Handles emoticons, censors words, automatically embeds media and more.

[Blackhawk]

So I think the solution is not to stop auto parsing. If you want to deny their chance of making any money, then just ban any link to x or twitter.

At that point, we go from stopping involuntary support with censorship being a side effect to straight up censorship.

[Unagi]

So I think the solution is not to stop auto parsing. If you want to deny their chance of making any money, then just ban any link to x or twitter.

That's a tragic line of thinking. Shame upon you.

As BH and stessier point out, what you suggest would actually be censorship. We are just arguing it shouldn't be automatic.

[GreenGoo]

Then censorship is the solution. And better censorship solution is to ban any link to twitter or X, not just stop auto parsing.

Stop auto parsing is going to give Musk some extra income when people click the link.

Compromise is a word.

[GreenGoo]

They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.

This is literally how embedded pictures in an email works. The email is sent, you get it. You're already on the list, which is why they spammed you in the first place.

You open the email, the client loads the pictures, which means it GOES TO the site that contains the pictures, and loads them. This tells the spammers that your email is valid and that they should target you even harder.

This is why I have gmail not load pictures by default.

I realize this might be news to some people, which is why the questions about how embedded links are different from just links. Links are just text until you click on it which tells your browser to go load that site. Embedded links do the clicking for you, loading "part of" the page already. The target site "sees" you looking at their stuff. Anyone who looks at a topic on these forums with an embedded link is loading tweets directly from twitter.

This is why letting people post links to twitter doesn't affect me (or them), and why letting them embed links does. I don't want to take away anyone's ability to post links to twitter, but I would prefer they don't force me to click on it, even just a little.

[Jaymann]

Testing...posted to ImgBB:



Seems to be working. For a while it would show a link instead of a picture.

[EvilHomer3k]

They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.

This is literally how embedded pictures in an email works. The email is sent, you get it. You're already on the list, which is why they spammed you in the first place.

You open the email, the client loads the pictures, which means it GOES TO the site that contains the pictures, and loads them. This tells the spammers that your email is valid and that they should target you even harder.

This is why I have gmail not load pictures by default.

I realize this might be news to some people, which is why the questions about how embedded links are different from just links. Links are just text until you click on it which tells your browser to go load that site. Embedded links do the clicking for you, loading "part of" the page already. The target site "sees" you looking at their stuff. Anyone who looks at a topic on these forums with an embedded link is loading tweets directly from twitter.

This is why letting people post links to twitter doesn't affect me (or them), and why letting them embed links does. I don't want to take away anyone's ability to post links to twitter, but I would prefer they don't force me to click on it, even just a little.

My thoughts exactly. I don't want to be forced into it.


“Every time you spend money, you're casting a vote for the kind of world you want.”
― Anna Lappe

To change it to modern internet, Every time you load a web page or email with embedded content you are voting for the kind of world you want.

[hepcat]

Kanye just quit X. Does this make a difference?

[Alefroth]

I thought Musk tossed him.

[hepcat]

Leon limited his account after he started posting straight up porn clips. But then Ye quit himself.

[GreenGoo]

He (kanye) clearly has mental health issues beyond your average person. If he's not schizophrenic I will be very surprised. That he has no one looking out for his best interests is a condemnation of society itself, imo. But he has money, so he's "eccentric". Right. Also, socialism is bad. He's on his own.

[LordMortis]

He clearly has mental health issues beyond your average person. If he's not schizophrenic I will be very surprised. That he has no one looking out for his best interests is a condemnation of society itself, imo. But he has money, so he's "eccentric". Right. Also, socialism is bad. He's on his own.

Ye or Leon?

[gilraen]

He clearly has mental health issues beyond your average person. If he's not schizophrenic I will be very surprised. That he has no one looking out for his best interests is a condemnation of society itself, imo. But he has money, so he's "eccentric". Right. Also, socialism is bad. He's on his own.

Ye or Leon?

I'm assuming Ye in this case.

[GreenGoo]

He clearly has mental health issues beyond your average person. If he's not schizophrenic I will be very surprised. That he has no one looking out for his best interests is a condemnation of society itself, imo. But he has money, so he's "eccentric". Right. Also, socialism is bad. He's on his own.

Ye or Leon?

I'm assuming Ye in this case.

Somewhat amusingly, I edited before reading LM's question.

[FishPants]

Ok the results are pretty clear on the majority preference. I will find time today to remove it from the media handler and make sure it works as intended with enclosing URL tags required.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Ok the results are pretty clear on the majority preference. I will find time today to remove it from the media handler and make sure it works as intended with enclosing URL tags required.

If our message board is leaning into implementing a form of soft censorship for one of the world's foremost social media platforms and most-visited websites based on the results of this poll, can we please get some OFFICIAL clarity on what specific objective criteria are being used to determine which sites and platforms are automatically parsed here and which are not moving forward? Because if we’re venturing down this path, establishing crystal-clear, unequivocal standards that delineate which sites and platforms fall under this purview is not just logical—it's imperative for ensuring a fair and consistent approach.

Edited for further clarity.

[Blackhawk]

I'd start with "Directly benefits the guy actively destroying our society in the most heartless manner he can devise."

Censorship: the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reason

Boycott: collective and organized ostracism applied in labour, economic, political, or social relations to protest practices that are regarded as unfair.

The goal of censorship is to deny a message or source based on it's content. That's not what we're doing here. The message is still welcome. Our goal is denying involuntary support to Elon Musk. The soft censorship in this case is a side effect, not the objective, and not the primary intent. The goal is more in line with a boycott.

[Pyperkub]

Ok the results are pretty clear on the majority preference. I will find time today to remove it from the media handler and make sure it works as intended with enclosing URL tags required.

If our message board is leaning into implementing a form of soft censorship for one of the world's foremost social media platforms and most-visited websites based on the results of this poll, can we please get some clarity on what specific criteria are being used to determine which sites and platforms are automatically parsed here and which are not moving forward? Because if we’re venturing down this path, establishing crystal-clear, unequivocal standards that delineate which sites and platforms fall under this purview is not just logical—it's imperative for ensuring a fair and consistent approach.

As indicated by me (for me), it's because they don't work without eliminating privacy controls, and so people who just paste the link instead of quoting, etc, just show as blank messages, or that the widget has been blocked.

the lazy drive by x posts with no quote, no comment, etc are just bad filler (plus if the X post is deleted, it's jut another broken link)