110 points unfocso 1 hour ago 62 comments
dpmartinez 53 minutes ago | parent
I wish legal issues wouldn’t exist for this project and X would stop attacking projects that provide information for free.
Privacy is important more than ever as many of us don't want to login into X.
unfocso 44 minutes ago | parent
amiga386 32 minutes ago | parent
No they didn't, or you'd see the text "Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown." and wouldn't have access to the repo at all. Instead you have full access to it, its author having merely archived it out of caution.
No reference to nitter in https://github.com/github/dmca/
embedding-shape 15 minutes ago | parent
Here is what the "free speech" platform have censored previously on GitHub:
> X Corp. employs various technical protection measures to control access to its copyrighted works, including those at issue here (API schemas and platform content): e.g., official X Corp. API key/OAuth authentication, rate-limiting mechanisms, proprietary behavioral pattern detection, TLS fingerprint validation, and x-clienttransaction-id checks. The repository referenced above appears specifically designed to circumvent these measures using browser cookies, curl_cffi TLS impersonation, fake headers, request jitter, and reverse-engineered GraphQL queries.
https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/b2c88bad7dd771dc7d1842ff...
nirewen 5 minutes ago | parent
Even if you fill out all the credentials needed, the app can't login to get the content.
So it's basically a kill switch that X implemented, and every other instance was shut down at the same time.
esarbe 51 minutes ago | parent
goda90 50 minutes ago | parent
*if you log in to an account
A big reason many people use Nitter instances is that X has become very locked down for unauthenticated users.
yoz-y 49 minutes ago | parent
rob74 45 minutes ago | parent
freedomben 11 minutes ago | parent
macNchz 42 minutes ago | parent
Zambyte 27 minutes ago | parent
figmert 13 minutes ago | parent
jmclnx 48 minutes ago | parent
There needs to be a free, non-ad, non-login environment people can use to access this information posted by public entities.
This comment also applies to facebook too, which I think is even worse than twitter.
DaedalusII 46 minutes ago | parent
jasonlotito 32 minutes ago | parent
amiga386 26 minutes ago | parent
There are millions of accounts for sale, roughly $0.10 per account.
https://hstockplus.com/accounts/twitter-x-accounts?sortBy=pr...
zImPatrick 16 minutes ago | parent
pamcake 48 minutes ago | parent
latexr 40 minutes ago | parent
Why do you say it’s permanent? Unarchiving a GitHub repository is reversible, and just as easy as archiving it.
zImPatrick 38 minutes ago | parent
Leonard_of_Q 22 minutes ago | parent
UPDATE: Following legal advice, the Nitter project will continue. More details will be announced soon.
petcat 9 minutes ago | parent
It's impossible to know what this "legal advice" was, but the software project itself is probably fine. The legal risk is always going to be with the person that hosts it with the intention of facilitating the unauthorized access of Twitter's website. Seems like that could run afoul of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Those people should seek their own legal advice.
graemep 4 minutes ago | parent
angoragoats 8 minutes ago | parent
Edit: I see I'm being downvoted for just providing facts, so here's some evidence: you can see on the main project page that the repo was archived on 11 Sep[0]. Looking in the commits, the "UPDATE" message was commited on 6 Sep[1].
[0] https://github.com/zedeus/nitter
[1] https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/commit/1428b4c2b4246f92a7e5...
accountrequired 48 minutes ago | parent
rob74 46 minutes ago | parent
pluc 43 minutes ago | parent
Waterluvian 37 minutes ago | parent
It's like paywalls. Some news companies share free news as a sort of loss leader. Others say, "if you aren't going to pay we simply don't want you here."
swed420 25 minutes ago | parent
They probably don't want their echo chamber leaking to the wider internet, because external discussion of the content would reveal it for the siloed thought bubble that it is.
Consider X now requires personal information to sign up, and after handing that info over, signups are often still rejected with no explanation given. Yet another tell they're very interested in maintaining that echo chamber.
zqwt3k 38 minutes ago | parent
wahnfrieden 34 minutes ago | parent
Edit: not a moral stance
zqwt3k 32 minutes ago | parent
echelon 27 minutes ago | parent
jm4 22 minutes ago | parent
embedding-shape 4 minutes ago | parent
You let it happen. Once people stop letting it happen, it'll stop. But social media is apparently the new "opium of the masses" so here we are and no one wants to do anything.
simianparrot 2 minutes ago | parent
HumblyTossed 8 minutes ago | parent
newscracker 33 minutes ago | parent
Forgeties79 24 minutes ago | parent
stingraycharles 11 minutes ago | parent
pino83 20 minutes ago | parent
Either you cancel X. Meaning: NOT consuming X content.
Or you just visit X.com.
Right? Right?
bananaflag 19 minutes ago | parent
embedding-shape 18 minutes ago | parent
A bit like your comment.
It's possible that other people you want to read, are using a platform you don't want to use. Have this perhaps never happened to you, even once?
small_model 9 minutes ago | parent
yawpitch 2 minutes ago | parent
^1: Concept of Acronyms