You’re alluding that others shouldn’t use the site, but you still do? You need an account to read there don’t you?

Nobody is leaving X apparently. If anything, I see people using it more now than ever before. I also see non political people using it more.

I need X for work but I don't really enjoy posting as it feels like you have to shitpost constantly to get engagement. That's not how I want to spend my energy.

Meanwhile, the non-Facebook Threads alternatives (Bluesky / Mastodon) are edgy spaces where furry, kink, and progressive DSA content reigns. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a bad first experience for newcomers when content like that is worn on the sleeve, shown as the first experience, and used to exclude outsiders.

Paraphrasing, but seeing profiles that say "If you're not [8 acronyms I don't understand], go to hell" - why is that even on my feed? What is this? I don't get any of this.

I remember when I signed up the main feed was full of horny anime profiles, sex toys, and death wishes for politicians intermixed with an occasional tech post. I'm pretty sure they didn't have that tracking data on me to tailor my feed.

There's nowhere middle of the road average. (Maybe Threads is that?) The other alternatives have certainly niched down and become unattractive to the mainstream.

It's like Reddit with Voat a decade or so ago, except Voat attracted people that were banned from Reddit for typically valid reasons.

Building an all inclusive social network is hard, because it depends on who the first users are. It sets the stage for growth and limits the ultimate appeal if it over-indexes on one type of user.

I wish this was all a protocol like email, but everyone building a protocol makes it weird and exclusive and ruins the vibes before users even arrive.

Plus they all insist on federation, when P2P is the way to go. It's scalable if people use super nodes to publish and gulp down content. The problem is Mastodon and Bluesky effectively have super nodes run by people that want to exclude mainstream. You can't do that and hope to get the world on board.

What I find even more amusing is that all the people that screech about how much they hate Elon, Trump, Conservatives etc. They also still basically only use Twitter err X.

The network effect is hard to pull away from especially when you realize nobody is listening elsewhere.

> How could anyone thing a single letter is good choice for an company/service name

In this case, Musk is stuck being his 12 year old self and carrying a 30 year old obsession to use this very cool naming for his "everything company", after losing that name along with him leaving PayPal. He finally got the chance.

At this point just ditch Twitter.

Also sotwe.com although you need to filter your javascript pretty heavily to use it safely.

From my understanding scraping a public website you'd otherwise have access to is legal in the US. However, re-hosting that scrapped copyright content, particularly if it isn't transformative/fair-use (inc. only partial content) is very much either violates copyright, or best case is legally a gray area.

Google got dragged into court for exactly this, and they were summarizing/snipping, so they had a fair-use argument to make. This is a 1:1 reproduction of the content, so the legal arguments on fair-use would be harder to make I suspect.

I've personally used XCancel, and I really like it, but stepping back legally they're on shaky ground if Twitter decides to stop it.

-ish. A lot of legal issues are heavily based on the particular circumstances, so a general statement like "scraping is legal" summarizing the results of hiQ v LinkedIn is a gross oversimplification of the actual findings of said case.

In general, the cases where scraping has been found to be legal have largely turned on the basis of things like accessing the public parts of the website and attempting to minimize potential copyright violation. Here, these services are bypassing a login requirement and reproducing the scraped data in full--actions that have generally led to findings of illegality in the past.

It's not a slam-dunk case in either direction, and I think the result would come down more to the quality of the lawyers to craft their arguments. And SpaceX has the cash right now to afford the better lawyers.

Sending a C&D ordering someone to stop doing a legal thing is also legal.

Civil law is not centered around what is or is not legal. It is about resolving problems that fall outside of criminal law. It is a completely different set of procedures and approach to the law.