That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
I hadn't even thought of that aspect at all.GreenGoo wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:55 pmOf course it's not strictly that.Anonymous Bosch wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2025 4:03 pm If this is strictly about impeding the ability to spread social media propaganda,
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.Grifman wrote:Not letting people express themselves in the manner in which they wish is censorship, plain and simple.
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.Unagi wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 7:11 pm I'm not interested in protecting my eyes from something on Twitter. I'm interested in not giving them additional hits.
It is not clear to me because the solution that is being voted on is for censorship but going to give Musk more income.Blackhawk wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2025 7:54 pmI think that's been answered pretty thoroughly in the thread.Victoria Raverna wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2025 7:44 pm What is the goal? Want to censor all twitter posts?
Or just want to deny Musk some advertising income?
Then censorship is the solution. And better censorship solution is to ban any link to twitter or X, not just stop auto parsing.GreenGoo wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:56 pmThe goal is twitter sucks.Victoria Raverna wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2025 7:44 pm What is the goal? Want to censor all twitter posts?
Or just want to deny Musk some advertising income?
I posted the question earlier but don't tjink it got an answer.Blackhawk wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 10:12 pm They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.
Embedding a Tweet gives them more money than simply displaying the link.Punisher wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 12:02 amI posted the question earlier but don't tjink it got an answer.Blackhawk wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 10:12 pm They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.
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?
Right, but is clicking the link worse than embedding?Alefroth wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 12:36 amEmbedding a Tweet gives them more money than simply displaying the link.Punisher wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 12:02 amI posted the question earlier but don't tjink it got an answer.Blackhawk wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 10:12 pm They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.
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?
I don't know, but a link doesn't get clicked simply by loading the page.Punisher wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 12:37 amRight, but is clicking the link worse than embedding?Alefroth wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 12:36 amEmbedding a Tweet gives them more money than simply displaying the link.Punisher wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 12:02 amI posted the question earlier but don't tjink it got an answer.Blackhawk wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 10:12 pm They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.
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?
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.Alefroth wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 12:38 amI don't know, but a link doesn't get clicked simply by loading the page.Punisher wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 12:37 amRight, but is clicking the link worse than embedding?Alefroth wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 12:36 amEmbedding a Tweet gives them more money than simply displaying the link.Punisher wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 12:02 amI posted the question earlier but don't tjink it got an answer.Blackhawk wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 10:12 pm They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.
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?
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
So all of the first Revenue and part of the second revenue is contributed to by embeds and they keep that data.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.
Yeah, but that would be a choice made by Hepcat and it would be fine.Punisher wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 12:44 am
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.
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.Victoria Raverna wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 10:13 am 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.
Text formatting library that supports BBCode, HTML and other markup via plugins. Handles emoticons, censors words, automatically embeds media and more.
At that point, we go from stopping involuntary support with censorship being a side effect to straight up censorship.Victoria Raverna wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 10:13 am 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.Victoria Raverna wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 10:13 am 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.
Compromise is a word.Victoria Raverna wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 8:33 pm 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.
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.Blackhawk wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 10:12 pm They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.
My thoughts exactly. I don't want to be forced into it.GreenGoo wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 1:32 pmThis 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.Blackhawk wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 10:12 pm They made money from me the second I loaded this page, and it had nothing to do with page views or advertising.
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.
Ye or Leon?GreenGoo wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 10:27 am 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.
I'm assuming Ye in this case.LordMortis wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:16 amYe or Leon?GreenGoo wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 10:27 am 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.
Somewhat amusingly, I edited before reading LM's question.gilraen wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:27 amI'm assuming Ye in this case.LordMortis wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:16 amYe or Leon?GreenGoo wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 10:27 am 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.
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.FishPants wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2025 9:32 am 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.
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
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.Boycott: collective and organized ostracism applied in labour, economic, political, or social relations to protest practices that are regarded as unfair.
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.Anonymous Bosch wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2025 11:56 amIf 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.FishPants wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2025 9:32 am 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.