undefined | Better HN

0 pointsraverbashing3y ago0 comments

Yes and it's tricky because in one side you're siding with the person that copied it, and in another, with the original author of the tweet.

0 comments

theelous33y ago

I don't know why you are (half) working off the presumption anyone cares about the post-hoc desire of the author.

This isn't tricky at all imo.

Just as if I pasted the text directly, I expect my copying of the content to have the same lifetime as the page I put it on. This is irrespective of anybody's wishes after the fact.

Nobody has the expectation that the text would disappear from my page if copied directly - so why should behavior change in any other case?

The original author of the tweet also has the intent. An unfortunate side effect of having a voice, is that sometimes people will listen and make notes.

macspoofing3y ago

>with the original author of the tweet.

Not necessarily. The example VOX article[1] had Trump's tweets embedded in the article, which are now hidden. Trump didn't delete those tweets. He was banned.

[1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/13/17233422/d...

raverbashingOP3y ago

There are many more cases of deletions than banned ones, let's not think of the exception as the rule

And the blog author still has the text as well

macspoofing3y ago

>There are many more cases of deletions than banned ones, let's not think of the exception as the rule

But that isn't the exception. Banned users tend to be the ones that have some level of public interest, as evidenced by the VOX quote.

>And the blog author still has the text as well

That's right and maybe in some way this new policy accidentally leads to good things, in that it may incentive sites that embed Twitter's content on their page, to simply bypass that.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

theelous33y ago

I don't know why you are (half) working off the presumption anyone cares about the post-hoc desire of the author.

This isn't tricky at all imo.

Just as if I pasted the text directly, I expect my copying of the content to have the same lifetime as the page I put it on. This is irrespective of anybody's wishes after the fact.

Nobody has the expectation that the text would disappear from my page if copied directly - so why should behavior change in any other case?

The original author of the tweet also has the intent. An unfortunate side effect of having a voice, is that sometimes people will listen and make notes.

macspoofing3y ago

>with the original author of the tweet.

Not necessarily. The example VOX article[1] had Trump's tweets embedded in the article, which are now hidden. Trump didn't delete those tweets. He was banned.

[1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/13/17233422/d...

raverbashingOP3y ago

There are many more cases of deletions than banned ones, let's not think of the exception as the rule

And the blog author still has the text as well

macspoofing3y ago

>There are many more cases of deletions than banned ones, let's not think of the exception as the rule

But that isn't the exception. Banned users tend to be the ones that have some level of public interest, as evidenced by the VOX quote.

>And the blog author still has the text as well

That's right and maybe in some way this new policy accidentally leads to good things, in that it may incentive sites that embed Twitter's content on their page, to simply bypass that.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse