"This will be unlocked shortly. Per my earlier post, drastic & immediate action was necessary due to EXTREME levels of data scraping.

Almost every company doing AI, from startups to some of the biggest corporations on Earth, was scraping vast amounts of data.

It is rather galling to have to bring large numbers of servers online on an emergency basis just to facilitate some AI startup’s outrageous valuation."

A) Twitter would probably move in this direction even if AI companies didn't exist, this is an excuse. Nothing about Musk's Twitter has indicated that he cares about Open data access or anonymous access to the site, and this follows a general trend of closing down the platform to non-monetizable users. Musk has abundantly shown in the past that he would prefer everyone browsing Twitter be logged into an account.

B) "it's temporary" -- how? You don't have a way to stop this other than forcing login. That situation is not going to change next week. To call this "temporary emergency measures" is so funny; there is no engineering solution for this and you're not going to be able to successfully sue companies for scraping Twitter. Put a captcha in front of it? Sure, let me know how that goes.

You going to wait and see if the AI market collapses in the next month?

If this does turn out to be temporary, it'll only be because of migrations off of Twitter and because of user criticism, because Musk is impulsive and bends easily under pressure. But nothing about the situation Musk is complaining about is going to change next week.

Libs like puppeteer is so good these days that it's impossible to tell real users from fake traffic. Most of the blocks are just IP blocks.

There absolutely is, if you try instead of whining on internet. People at Vercel have already developed new anti-bot + fingerprinting + rate limiting techniques which look quite promising. I dare say within a year, new tools will be powerful enough to do this easily.

I see where you're coming from, but if Twitter is in a position where it can't roll out those protections right now, given its current head counts, etc... it's not going to be in a position where it can roll out those protections next week. Probably not next month.

So it's less that no one could block companies from scraping Twitter (although anti-scraping mechanisms are probably always going to be a cat-and-mouse game, so I'm not sure that there is ever going to be a perfect easy solution). It's more that if Twitter can't do it right now, nothing is going to magically change any time soon about the situation it has found itself in. And waiting a year (even waiting 6 months) for tools to become available before rolling back this rate limiting would be incredibly self-destructive for Twitter.

The way I see it, they're basically guaranteeing that they will need to roll back these changes before they have a solution to whatever specific problem or irritation Musk is fixated on. They're not going to gain additional engineering capabilities in the next week. And how long does Musk plan to leave rate-limiting in place? A social media site where people can't look at content is just broken.

Not so, he tasked George Hotz with getting rid of that horrible popup which prevented you from scrolling down much if you weren't logged in, which was added soon before he bought Twitter. When that was removed I rejoiced. But now Twitter's gone 100x in the opposite direction.

To be fair, Musk will regularly pay lip-service to the idea of Open communication. I guess that's not literally nothing, but most large site policies have been in the direction of locking down content.

If there ever was a version of Musk that cared about Open access, it's been a while since that version of him saw the light of day. It's very consistent with his overall behavior to believe that he views Twitter content as being primarily his property rather than a community resource, and that he thinks that scrapers/AI companies/researchers are literally stealing from him if they derive any value at all from data that Twitter hosts.

The licenses, compensation models, law, technical solutions, attribution, security and privacy all need time to catch up. Regulation has a role to play as its a bit of a free for all right now.

The irony of Elon mentioning “outrageous valuations” though!

I'd expect those that require real time data, such as stock market bots or sentiment data providers, to scrape twitter (if they don't provide the data by other means, for example the "firehose", which is another great way to earn money).

None of this makes much sense.

Also, it's much more complicated than it seems. The web works because the data is public. You cannot think of it as "my data". (Especially not twitter, since it is really their users'!) Twitter is not higher quality data than any other web page.

If we accept that thinking, every home page would require a login to see that specific company's phone number of opening hours. Those pieces of data are also valuable, in the right circumstances! And then the web would either not exist or the account system required would be so wide spread that accounts would carry no value and the system would become useless.

I can think of a few possible reasons. They might want more up-to-date info, or they might have no real developers and the scraper was created by a business guru who prompted ChatGPT and didn't understand the code that came out.

Given what else Musk has asserted about Twitter, and how often former or current Twitter devs have contradicted him, it may not even be what Musk said.

> Twitter is not higher quality data than any other web page

Eh, depends how much you can infer from retweet, favourites, etc.

Won't be the only such site, but it's probably better training data than blog posts are these days.

But yeah, I absolutely agree that Twitter doing this caused a lot of damage to any orgs, corporate or government, which wanted to be public, anything from restaurants announcing special offers to governments issuing hurricane warnings. Twitter isn't big enough to assume everyone has an account, like Facebook is.

Of course, none of those people own Twitter, and it may well be more valuable to its owners if it does require a login.

There was no web in the 80s so not sure what values you refer to, or how they are relevant to today's businesses.

What do you think the webs value was imagined to be in the “80s”?

This is just kicking the can down the road.

We have a major structural problem now. We want data to be free and machine readable, but no startup (and even a giant like Twitter) can afford the server cost to withstand all those machines.

But then so is Twitter. They don’t produce any content whatsoever. The data they are having a fit about is not theirs, it’s been volunteered by the users. It’s the same line Reddit is pushing, and it’s bullshit. AI companies scraping the web is no more unethical than Google doing it.

Taking/scrapping/stealing that data out of said platform for the benefit of your over-hyped “disruptive” startup - and implying that others should give you all for free - is the issue.

Scraping data from a public website is not "stealing". It might be a violation of the terms of service, but then you have the whole issue of click-through (formerly shrink-wrap) licenses and contracts of adhesion.

If someone isn't vetting you and potentially signing you to a more meaningful contract before giving you access, for free, to data, then using that data for any purpose whatsoever (except republishing it or derived works, which might, depending on the nature of the data or the derived works, be a violation of someone's copyright) is so far from "stealing" that using that word is wrong, and I suspect intentionally inflammatory.

That's why Elon limited access, rather than going to the police to file charges for theft, or suing over copyright violation or breach of contract. Not to say he absolutely couldn't do the latter, but it's hardly a clear win.

1. Users or one might say content creators don't own their data. Not just do those platform owners make a lot of money with the content (which they have a license to, as per site ToS) but then you have third parties scraping it now for commercial products. Using the data to train models that are then sold back to some of the same social media users who produced the content for free in the first place wasn't a thing until very recently, it used to be a select few doing machine learning research in the past. The laws are lacking behind the tech development and regular internet users are being exploited because of it.

2. It absolutely is stealing in some cases, and even worse. For example when they scrape it for content which they then use to train their bots to impersonate humans. Or on Twitter, there's a very common type of bot that steals content from young attractive female social media users in China, auto-translated to English, to pose as them. If you're in finance and crypto circles they're swarming with these accounts (guess the scammers know their targets).

3. In general this is only going to get worse from here on. LLM are getting better and better. On sites like Twitter you already have no idea if you're interacting with a human or not. But these "AI" can not actually think for themselves, they can only emulate, they can copy other humans. At least so far. So for the sake of making progress and ensuring we can still have intelligent discussions and find novel ideas online, it's imperative to have a way to keep the machines out. Social media must become sybil resistant or it dies in a vicious circle of self-referencing bots ever parroting the same old talking points, or variations thereof. We urgently need human ID!

Nobody is deprived of their property, intellectual or otherwise, when this stuff happens, thus is it not right to call it stealing.

Governments, researchers, and all kinds of third parties have already been scraping every publicly available bit of data possible. There may be an increase now, but it's nothing new. It won't be the end of the society or the end of the internet anymore than AI will.

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

>have already been scraping every publicly available bit of data possible

Data scraping is limited by economics just like anything else in the world. Storage costs money, someone has to pay for it. Researchers do not have unlimited funds. Some select few governments like the US may have most of the publicly accessible web archived. Keep in mind it's dynamic and requires massive data infrastructure to pull this off, there's tons of new data coming in daily. Private startups getting in on the action in a big way is a relatively new phenomenon, this used to be limited to enterprises with a specific purpose. Now everyone and their 4chan cousin are experimenting with their own deep learning models.

Bots aren't people and can't read nor consent. They just consume.

Any page which can be served without first displaying a ToC or other terms which explicitly prohibit access is not protected by a ToC or other license from scraping, as they can be considered a Point of First Contact in each case, as the bot has selected each link from a simple aggregation of all links it encounters (each interaction being "new" in essence).

Now it could be argued that ignoring robots.txt is an explicit contravention of norms and standards which could be viewed as a violation of an implicit licence, but there is no law requiring adherence to robots.txt and thus no mandate that a program even look for it iiuc.

Even more applicable, this is like saying that a person walking down the street can't have a camera and take a picture of the front of the building....

Because the page you land on when entering a url is in fact little different than a store front, with the associated signage and access points defining how a person or automated device may interact with that business.

If you want to have it different then you have to actually put everything behind a locked door with no window, right?

I'm strictly anti account, so he just lost me as audience. The next walled garden after Facebook and Instagram that won't ever see me again.

However if you mean implementing some even worse obfuscation (kind of like FB putting parts of words in different divs etc) that is not really compatible with the situation that this needed to be done as more of a temporary emergency measure. And PoW doesn't sound reasonable because it sets mobile devices against the scraper's servers. If all of this was just so easy, scraping would be dead. Good that it isn't.

Scraper servers and mobile devices have different access patterns though. I I'm reading tweets then I'm fine waiting 1 second for a tweet to load. Page load times for this kind of bloated stuff are super slow anyway, meanwhile my mobile could spend a second or two on some PoW. But if you want to large-scale scrape, you suddenly have to pay for 1bn CPU seconds. And this PoW could even keep continuously increasing per IP. 0.1% with every tweet. Not noticeablr for the casual surfer sitting on the toilet, neck-breaking for scrapers.

> If all of this was just so easy, scraping would be dead. Good that it isn't.

Small-scale scraping could still be provided through API access or just a login.

The reason they are not doing the "easy" thing is that they don't see a need (yet, perhaps). Just get an account, they'd say, and they are right. It works for Instagram too, except for some weirdos who nobody really cares about.

>The reason they are not doing the "easy" thing is that they don't see a need (yet, perhaps).

This argument just doesn't make any sense. Twitter notes that this is hurting them. Previews in chat apps, just clicking links in non-loggedin contexts is are broken. I feel like you just predict that this will turn out to be more accepted in the near future and become more a more permanent decision, which you don't like.

Most baffling is mobile reddit, where it takes like 6 seconds to load. Do they want us to use their crappy app, or they just dont care?

For non-auth use, I rather wait for 1 second than not have any access at all. Which is the current state of affairs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely throttling scrapers (at least ones that are not nefarious in their habits) is a problem that can be mitigated server-side, so I find it somewhat galling that its the excuse.

No matter what you do, this will cost server infra. That's Musk's argument for disabling access altogether.

Therefore it would make sense to have a solution which burdens the client disproportionately in relation to the server. A burden so low for the casual user that it's negligible but in aggregate, at scale, would break things. Which is what he wants.

Looks to me like both reddit and twitter are using the wedge to rather increase the height of the wall of their gardens and kill 3rd party development as opposed to genuinely trying to license bulk-users appropriately.

You're gonna need to license api keys so you're already identifying consumers and there's your infra which you need anyway. At which point you can throttle anyone obviously abusing whatever free/open-source tier offering you give out as standard.

Also a side note: distributed Web crawler is not unheard of these days, as well as residential IP proxies. Meaning the effectiveness of Proof of Work model maybe also limited.

These systems tend to treat residential proxies as normal users, and puts less restrictions on them. On the other hand, if the IP address belongs to some (untrusted) IDCs, then the system will enable more annoying restrictions (say rate limits etc) against it, making scraping less efficient.

This works far better when the items requested are small in number but large in volume (that is: a large number of requests against a small set of origin resources). When dealing with widespread and deep scraping, other strategies might be necessary, but these aren't impossible to envision.

Specifically permitted scraping interfaces or APIs for large-volume data access would be another option.

Of course, there's the associated issue that data aggregation itself conveys insights and power, and there might be concerns amongst those who think they're providing incidental and low-volume access to records discovering that there's a wholesale trade occurring in the background (whether that's remunerated or free of charge).

Actually I’m surprised this took so long to do, and in the light of doing so shows that perhaps Twitter was sold for its existing content rather than existing or active user base.

Not a very significant distinction: if active users stopped posting, scrappers wouldn't have much of a reason to keep scrapping.

Age may be included as part of the training but they generally want to suck up as much data as possible.

It's shared ownership. You own it, but give Twitter non-exclusive permission to also use it.

This is why news agencies request permission from a twitter account before sharing a picture they took.

It may seem weird weird to compare useful content to a used napkin, but hey, successful business founder stereotypes do quite often involve have an idea written on a napkin…

Yes, it’s a mistake to rely on social media content remaining up forever, agreed. That’s separate from ownership. Backups are important even for data on a hard drive you physically own, since hard drives can fail or be damaged or lost.

I can own a picture, but I can't place it on the NY Times website.

Also, Twitter is a public platform. Twitter didn't generate comments, and people posting on a public account are indirectly subject to public viewing. Not much different from being indirectly recorded in a public park

The Twitters and Reddits need to be careful here when complaining because without users generating free content, they also have no business.

There's one major player making money off of other peoples content here, and that's Twitter. Why are they ok doing that, but not anyone else?

I recall that email at one point was 90% spam.

Including you and me. WE built part of the infrastructure.

Many people who aren’t that privacy conscious would however object to lots of companies, big and small, sucking their content into their databases for their own uses, then republishing after it’s passed through a few AI models.

Do they have a choice? A handful of corporations have captured all the network effects. If you need to reach an audience to do your job or find your "friends", what other choice do you have but to give your data to them?

If they aren't close why do you care?

Alternatively, what would make more sense is to participate in communities gated by these networks but then it's your choice to be there.

I don't personally have this problem, but my observation is that most social relationships are somewhere in between closest friends and don't care.

My own concern is more about participating in professional, neighbourhood, civil society or political communities. Choosing not to be where they have decided to congregate means not being able to do my job and not making my voice heard where many decisions affecting me are taken.

I think this points out that AIs clearly do not work like human brains. Human brains do not need all of the content of humanity to produce a replica of art station mediocre.

But why not just... provide it? Charge however much for a box of hard drives containing every publicly-available tweet, mailed to the address of buyer's choosing. Then the startups get their stupid tweets and you don't have any load problems on your servers.

In other words, the root problem is incompetent management, not any technical issue.

Don't worry though, the legal system is still coming for Musk, and he will be forced to cough up the additional billions (?) he has unlawfully cheated out of a wide assortment of counterparties in violation of his various contracts. And as employee attrition continues, whatever technical problems Twitter has today will only get worse, with or without "scraping".

The key benefit to a cache is that a small set of content accounts for a large set of traffic. This can be staggeringly effective with even a very limited amount of caching.

Your options are:

1. Maintain the same cache size. This means your origin servers get far more requests, and that you perform far more cache evictions. Both run "hotter" and are less efficient.

2. Increase the cache size. Problem here is that you're moving a lot of low-yield data to the cache. On average it's ... only requested once, so you're paying for far more storage, you're not reducing traffic by much (everything still has to be served from origin), and your costs just went up a lot.

3. Throttle traffic. The sensible place to do this IMO would be for traffic from the caching layer to the origin servers, and preferably for requesting clients which are making an abnormally large set of non-cached object requests. Serve the legitimate traffic reasonably quickly, but trickle out cold results to high-demand clients slowly. I don't know to what extent caching systems already incorporate this, though I suspect at least some of this is implemented.

4. Provide an alternate archival interface. This is its own separately maintained and networked store, might have regulated or metered access (perhaps through an API), might also serve out specific content on a schedule (e.g., X blocks or Y timespan of data are available at specific times, perhaps over multipath protocols), to help manage caching. Alternatively, partner with a specific datacentre provider to serve the data within given facilities, reducing backbone-transit costs and limitations.

5. Drop-ship data on request. The "stationwagon full of data tapes" solution.

6. Provide access to representative samples of data. LLM AI apparently likes to eat everything it can get its hands on, but for many purposes, selectively-sampled data may be sufficient for statistical analysis, trendspotting, and even much security analysis. Random sampling is, through another lens, an unbiased method for discarding data to avoid information overload.

(And IMO, that perceived legitimacy was unfounded for both HTTPS and the blue check before both were easy to get, it's just that the bar had to drop to the floor for most people to realize how little it meant.)

He got laughed out of a Twitter call thing with lead engineers in the industry for saying he wanted to “rewrite the entire stack” and not having a definition for what he meant.

Doomed or not, Musk is terrible at just about everything he does and Twitter is no exception

https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-data-api-prices-out-near...

Researchers are complaining that it's far too high for academic grants. Probably true, but that's no different from other obscenely priced subscriptions like access to satellite imagery (can easily be $1k for a single image which you have no right to distribute). I'm less convinced that it's impossible for them to do research with 50 million tweets a month, or with what data there is available. Most researchers can't afford any of the AI SAAS company subscriptions anyway. Data labelling platforms - without the workers - can cost 10-20k a year. I spoke to one company that wouldn't get out of bed for a contract less than 100k. Most offer a free tier a la Matlab in the hope that students will spin out companies and then sign up. I don't have an opinion on what archival tweets should cost, but I do think it's an opportunity to explore more efficient analyses.

Wow, never thought of it that way before. Kinda hit me hard for some reason.

I think "AI is takin' ooor contents!" is a convenient excuse to tighten the screws further. Having a Boogeyman in the form of technology that's already under worried discussion by press and politicians is a great way to convince users how super-super-serious the problem must be, and to blow a dog whistle at other companies to indicate they should so the same.

It's no coincidence that the first two companies to do this so actively and recently are both overvalued, not profitable, and don't actually directly produce any of the content on their platforms.

That said, there are concerns with data aggregation, as patterns and trends become visible which aren't clear in small-sample or live-stream (that is, available in near-time to its creation) data. And the creators of corpora such as Twitter, Facebook YouTube, TikTok, etc., might well have reason to be concerned.

This isn't idle or uninformed. I've done data analysis in the past on what were for the time considered to be large datasets. I've been analyzing HN front-page activity for the past month or so, which is interesting. I've found it somewhat concerning when looking at individual user data, though, here being the submitter of front-page items. It's possible to look at patterns over time (who does and does not make submissions on specific days of the week?) or across sites (what accounts heavily contribute to specific website submissions?). In the latter case, I'd been told by someone (in the context of discussing my project) of an alt identity they have on HN, and could see that the alternate was also strongly represented among submitters of a specific site.

Yes, the information is public. Yes, anyone with a couple of days to burn downloading the front-page archive could do similar analysis. And yes, there's far more intrusive data analytics being done as we speak at vastly greater scale, precision, and insights. That doesn't make me any more comfortable taking a deep dive into that space.

It's one thing to be in public amongst throngs or a crowd, with incidental encounters leaving little trace. It's another to be followed, tracked, and recorded in minute detail, and more, for that to occur for large populations. Not a hypothetical, mind, but present-day reality.

The fact that incidental conversations and sharings of experiences are now centralised, recorded, analyzed, identified, and shared amongst myriad groups with a wide range of interests is a growing concern. The notion of "publishing" used to involve a very deliberate process of crafting and memoising a message, then distributing it through specific channels. Today, we publish our lives through incidental data smog, utterly without our awareness or involvement for the most part. And often in jurisdictions and societies with few or no protections, or regard for human and civil rights, let alone a strong personal privacy tradition.

As I've said many times in many variants of this discussion, scale matters, and present scale is utterly unprecedented.

One of the things you could do is reduce the granularity. So instead of showing that someone posted at 1:23:45 PM on Saturday, July 1, 2023, you show that they posted the week of June 25, 2023. Then you're not going to be doing much time of day or day of week analysis because you don't have that anymore.

Though I've thought for quite some time that making the trade and transaction of such data illegal might help a lot.

Otherwise ... what I see many people falling into the trap of is thinking of their discussions amongst friends online as equivalent, say, to a discussion in a public space such as a park or cafe --- possibly overheard by bystanders, but not broadcast to the world.

In fact there is both a recording and distribution modality attached to online discussions that's utterly different to such spoken conversations, and those also give rise to the capability to aggregate and correlate information from many sources.

Socially, legally, psychologically, legislatively, and even technically, we're ill-equipped to deal with this.

Fuzzing and randomising data can help, but has been shown to be stubbornly prone to de-fuzzing and de-randomising, especially where it can be correlated to other signals, either unfuzzed or differently-fuzzed.

When you have financial incentive to build your business on someone’s data and you scrap literally millions if not billions of pages - it’s unethical.

This data is often of great public value. I track conversations around a social issue as part of my work for a non-profit.

I'd counter it's unethical to prevent people from accessing this data.

> great public value

Having been to twitter mostly through the most recent prominent war, man the signal to noise ratio is really low even when being careful about who to follow and who to block. There is so much disinformation, bad takes, uninformed opinions presented as facts, pure evil, etc.

So I guess it could be used for training very specific things or cataloging the underbelly of humanity but for general human knowledge it’s a frigging cesspool.

I do not use the Twitters myself, and actively discourage others from doing so. Sends people bonkers.

We were actually gearing up to switch to paid accounts as we found use cases that could subsidize these efforts... And then the starting price for reasonably small volumes shot up to like $500k/yr.

We have robots.txt. If Google doesn't respect that, it's unethical. Don't you think so?

Not that the people you want to respect that would

Especially since they're not moderating things or anything.

Agreed. However, it's probably covered by their terms of service.

Same thing with the recent reddit kerfuffle. I'd have much preferred a Usenet 2.0 instead of centralizing global communications in the hands of a handful of private companies with associated user-hostile incentive structures.

If it doesn't respect robots.txt, it is unethical.

Musk is trying to have his cake and eat it...

(Clearly it's not a public square, but his position is incoherent).

Expectations =/= reality. And the reality is that bits have been reading comments for over a decade.

b) Given Twitter is public, user generated content which they don't own but simply have a license I wouldn't call it unethical in the slightest.

The only reason these websites and platforms aggregate any content at all is because they're effectively giant public squares.

It's interesting how you assume that most people despise Musk.

I don't despise Musk at all. Don't agree with him on everything, but he is a genuine and interesting person.

Your nonsense straight out of the a Soviet propaganda book doesn't work on me.

Go ask people from Eastern Europe how they felt about 45/50+ years of Soviet imposed governments and regimes.

The West has done awful things but in what way do they excuse the attempted ethnic cleansing of Ukraine?

You’re probably smart enough to understand that out of spite and regret of your country’s history with the Russians your countrymen have more motivation than many others to judge the Russian efforts without any further investigation into the matter.

The same applies for myself, since I’m Finnish. It’s almost sad to see how people abandon all reason and critical thinking skills because of some ingrained belief that “Russia bad”. All of my knowledge of the human nature leads me to believe that they’re no more bad than the next people, and that they probably have some motives to go to a taxing war that we don’t really understand here in the west - seeing as the first casualty in war is the truth.

That's an extremely dumb take

Then they followed it up with the old hacker news chestnut of 'whatabout the west'

I don’t think it’s a particularly nuanced point to you

What point and why do you keep saying 'nuance' over and over while giving zero actual information? What are you trying to say and what evidence is there?

Let's think about this super hard. What is the justification for an unprovoked genocidal war? Why are you defending putin?

however ignorant it might be.

Show me where you get your information, lets see the source of this nonsense.

It cuts right through the bullshit and frequently exposes a lot of hypocrisy, hate, self loathing, racism, etc.

Isn't that basically what they did with the API changes?

Which just leads people to scrape.

If they'd made some more reasonable pricing tiers, I would have been happy to pay.

Fetching something as simple as the total follower count from an API shouldn't be more (exorbitantly) more expensive than fetching data from, say, GPT-4. No reasonable person can make an argument for $10c/call pricing.

This smells of another failed Musk experiment at twiddling with the knobs to increase engagement, to me.

It can add nontrivial load.

The legal ambiguity comes from the question of whether LLM outputs are a derivative work of the training data. I expect that they aren't, but anything can happen.

You don't need to use a bot to do this, Twitter literally did this to themselves through their own buggy code https://sfba.social/@sysop408/110639474671754723

If Silicon Valley was still being produced, this would make for a great episode.

If these data scraping operations are as sophisticated and determined as he claims this measure is insufficient and actually it really hurts Twitter far more than it helps. Case in point: we stopped sharing Twitter links because when you click them in most iOS apps it opens up an unauthenticated web view and presents you with a login screen. So we just collectively decided “ah ok no sharing Twitter” and moved on.

I’m sure there are companies scraping Twitter. I just don’t buy that it’s as big of an issue as he claims it is, and that preventing people from viewing tweets without logging in is a way to mitigate against that (I’d first look at banning problematic IP addresses first, personally).

To me it’s either:

1) a very poor and very temporary mitigation against scraping, that could be bypassed with a bit of effort

2) an experiment in optimising metrics - Musk sees lots of unauthenticated users consuming Twitter, tries to steer them into signing up

3) it’s all just a big mistake

Option #2 makes the most sense to me, but frankly none of them are good

Reddit is a cesspool of misinformation and phallic references.

I guess there may be certain subreddits/tweeters that someone might want to train on, but I dont understand why.

> Something went wrong. Try reloading.

on that link. Which, frankly, is hilarious.

> I’m still confused as to how a non-profit to which I donated ~$100M somehow became a $30B market cap for-profit. If this is legal, why doesn’t everyone do it?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1636047019893481474

> I donated the first $100M to OpenAI when it was a non-profit, but have no ownership or control

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1639142924985278466

Because it was thereby starting to compete with his own for-profit.

He was even asking for a moratorium for 6 months so his company could catch up.

Then in 2022, they blew up and Elon's been spitting venom at them ever since as he missed his chance.

He tried to pressure them to make him a CEO, they refused, so he said "no money then, go bankrupt" and quit the board. They made a deal with Microsoft and survived.

Now he's pissed.

Congrats you played yourself.

Twitter is maybe at the dog stage. Perhaps it’ll die.

Bad data is devastating in a way a HTTP 401 is not.

It sounds like Elon doesn't "get" the open web

I think that we are already putting too much content into Social Media platforms (HN included). Stuff that we sort of ought to self host because then we would actually own it. But will you even want to run your own sites publicly if they are getting scraped? I guess it’s it really a new issue as such, but I imagine it’ll only get worse as the LLM craze continues to rise.

I was relieved when they started asking for an account this week because now I'll finally be able to break my habit of navigating to Twitter to "see what's happening" only to find a bunch of sports memes, pop music drama, or right-wing trolls pretending like Hunter Biden is the most nefarious person on the planet.

Imo, Elon is lying and he locked everything down for PR so he would make a headline and frame it like his site's content is _so valuable_ that he just had to take drastic measures to stop AI from training on it.

I wish it would stays that way though so that I wouldn't land on the site by accident.

[1] https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/twitter-pays-goog...