Comment by DoctorOetker
11 hours ago
There is a strong distinction between news articles authored by or on behalf of a company, versus user generated content.
So I don't think nytimes, or cnn is an apt comparison.
It's more like your cellular provider claiming intellectual ownership over the web you browsed and conversations you read when people start sharing their downloaded pages.
> articles authored by or on behalf of a company, versus user generated content.
It gives me both a sense of schadenfreude but also a deep depression to watch the shoe on the other foot.
It was only a couple years ago that the talking point was "It's a private company!!", used to defend mass censorship on old Twitter, defend delisting of Parler on app stores, etc.
It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.
Content moderation is not censorship, and Nitter has no right to to use accounts to scrape and republish information that X has chosen to gate.
Content moderation is censorship (sometimes more egregious than others, but all ultimately censorship).
It's just not government censorship.
[dead]
I think this is really something considering the whole ”social media is not responsible for what ppl post” thing
yea, there's also the fact the public entities have chosen to use this avenue for disseminating legal information
you can "de facto" a lot from this arrangement :(
Thing is, X has actually paid people to tweet.
(It made everything worse if you ask me but they did do it.)