zlacker

...and it may never have been a nefarious thing but a bug related to cookies or SSL activity on links and a myriad of other complicated things. Yes, Elon sucks but unsubstantiated nonsense that shouldn't have gotten beyond that HN post.

>>ChrisA+(OP)
If that were the case, it would be very appropriate for them to publicly acknowledge this with a root cause.

I don’t give them such benefit of the doubt because occams razor in this case is that the company has a vindictive and childish billionaire at the helm, with a history of prioritizing edgy and spiteful actions.

>>apppli+U
Fair enough yeah, I know he doesn't care about what ppl think, but would love to hear a proper explanation.

I couldn't even duplicate it for multiple NYT links on the site (last night). People were jumping to conclusions based on personal tests etc.

Anyways, usual sh*tshow all around, just kind of wary/embarassing to see it jump out of a random Tell HN: thread on here to news sites.

>>ChrisA+(OP)
You’re asking way too much of the internet

>>ChrisA+(OP)
Send a request to their team about it, get back a poop emoji, then go check the owner’s timeline if they mentioned anything about it in between him calling Mark Zuckerberg a cuck, going to his house to beat him and the Gen Z memes, then go back recalling a year full of absolute nonsense, including several attempts to block competitor links, threatening to delete New York Times’ account for saying they won’t buy a check, and even marking Substack as a malware domain, and banning likes, replies and retweets of their main account, step back and think if assuming more of exactly THAT isn’t the most logical prediction to make.

Your mistake is treating Musk as if he’s acting like a normal person, and believing he’s running Twitter like a normal company.

>>ChrisA+(OP)
I think it probably was some weird glitch, but I also think they decided not to fix it. Orgs and people have that weird bias, where they prefer to do things that benefits them.

My guess is, that some engineer noticed the glitch and then someone decided not to allocate time to solve it, because the CEO would be more happy if the glitch stayed the way it is.

>>ChrisA+(OP)
> a bug related to cookies

You're probably talking about this HN comment [1], but he was typing in the command wrong, and thus not querying it without a User-Agent (important, as Twitter has known different behaviour with different UAs), and once he got it right - same behaviour [2].

Like, sure, it could be a weird technical glitch. But as of yet, nobody could find a counter-example of a web property Musk didn't have an issue with, where this behaviour was exhibited.

[1]: >>37136776

[2]: >>37139792

>>ChrisA+h1
It's funny, the HN crowd has gotten all up in arms about this, which even if true is merely childish and annoying. However, when the previous management blocked the New York Post for daring to break the story on Hunter Biden's laptop, that was apparently okay.

Instead of downvoting me this time, I would appreciate some discussion of how the alleged throttling is somehow so much worse than the actual censorship of an important news story about blatant corruption and multiple criminal acts by a politician's son that abused his father's position of privilege for personal gain.

>>lockho+9F
>how the alleged throttling is somehow so much worse than...

One difference is transparency.

In the prior administration NY Post case, twitter leadership responded to the issue, acknowledged that the company made a mistake, and both pledged and acted to refrain from repeating the behavior. In the current case twitter has failed to acknowledge, discuss, or commit to any future actions.

Think about the kind of outages and system failures we see at any large SaaS provider. At scale, mistakes will happen, including bad ones. How the organization responds and what sort of transparency it provides tells us whether we can trust that organization going forward. Was there a post-mortem? Are there next steps?

Denial that the mistake happened and denial that the mistake was a problem is the worst response an organization can have after an incident. The current Twitter administration is thus far taking that path. The prior administration owned its mistake and corrected for it. That is the difference.