zlacker

>>ZacnyL+(OP)
It's an interesting theory but the DDoS predates the decision to disable anonymous access. In fact, that decision was taken in order to mitigate an ongoing DDoS[0][1]. So while it's possible that the questionnable web front end retry logic is not helping things, it's not the root cause.

[0] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1674865731136020505

> Temporary emergency measure. We were getting data pillaged so much that it was degrading service for normal users!

[1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1674942336583757825

> 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.

>>olalon+Ag1
That is a post-backlash claim by Elon Musk, so it should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

>>tsimio+Tv1
It seems more plausible than the alternative. Let's say that Twitter availability issues were really caused by disabling anonymous access and that Elon wants to back out of his decision due to public backlash, wouldn't he just reverse the decision? That would fix both of his issues at once. He could even claim to have solved the scraping issues through a clever trick that doesn't require disabling anonymous access. The fact he hasn't done so indicates that there is a genuine issue that he can't just fix by restoring anonymous access.

>>olalon+Cz1
The theory is more that Elon wants to prevent public access to Twitter in hopes of making it more profitable, but he doesn't like the backlash to such cash grabs and has invented this story which makes the Auth requirement and non-paying account view quotas more palatable.

It's important to note that Twitter's desires are fundamentally at odds with the desires of the content creators on Twitter on this point. Twitter, ideally, wants to only show it's tweet to real people who will click on an ad, since it costs money to show tweets and bots or people who don't look at ads are not paying that money back. Creators on Twitter want their tweet to be shown to anyone at all, and will leave if they feel people just aren't seeing their tweets.

So, Twitter must walk a fine line when trying to restrict who can see their tweets, lest they alienate content creators. Inventing a common foe is a tried-and-true tactic for getting people to accept changes that hurt them.

>>tsimio+TA1
My initial contention was directed towards the claim that Twitter was accidentally DDoSing itself. However, it seems you are proposing another theory - that there is no DDoS at all and Twitter is "faking" its availability issues to introduce quotas and a login requirement. While I personally perceive this as veering into conspiracy theory territory, I concede that it isn't entirely beyond the realm of possibility.