13 comments

  • codechicago277 1 hour ago
    Few details but glad to see the project will continue. Given how much crucial information is posted exclusively to X, having an alternative frontend is important.

    Interesting that they were inspired by Invidious (alternative YouTube frontend). That’s another project that could use some love. Hopefully AI coding tools can do some good and make it easier for these projects to find ways into the walled gardens and work around the counter measures.

    Waiting for the day all the social networks allow api access and become usable again. Maybe we can call it “agent first” to help move things along.

  • iamflimflam1 1 hour ago
    I once consulted a lawyer when a large company contacted me.

    His response was - they've got a team of lawyers on payroll whose job it is to make you run out of money...

    • psolidgold 23 minutes ago
      Serious comment: I wonder how this dynamic will change when AI has some real legal chops. One could spin up agents that could sift through all the BS discovery docs and correspondence they send to waste time and money. The agents could presumably even file the necessary paperwork on your behalf. Obviously not a lawyer, just food for thought.
      • LatticeAnimal 2 minutes ago
        Unserious comment: The big company will spin up swarms of agents whose job is to overwhelm your AI agents with legal requests / correspondence, still with the goal of making you run out of money (but now via AI spend).
      • alansaber 4 minutes ago
        AI is good at volume, bad at accuracy and nuance. Of all the tasks to go through with a fine-toothed comb (ie, manually) legal is one.
    • 1asf21 59 minutes ago
      It would be unfortunate for xAI, which abused the TOS of OpenAI for distilling via user accounts, to get a ruling that forbids scraping via user accounts.

      The entire business model of the AI industry, who resell and launder the scraped data, would collapse.

      Nitter just makes it visible to a human and has anti-scraper measures necessitated by the thieves like xAI.

      Additionally, a GoFundMe would reach astronomical proportions given how unpopular Musk is.

      • kova12 54 minutes ago
        Latter is probably a factor, because merely being right doesn't mean you won't run out of money while defending yourself from lawyers
        • terribleperson 15 minutes ago
          While true, parent comment's first point (that the plaintiff would be unwilling to make the winning argument) would have an impact on their ability to spend the defendent to death. Judges do notice when you don't have an actual argument.
    • worldsavior 21 minutes ago
      It seems like youtube-dl/yt-dlp survived. t
  • ocd 1 hour ago
    Probably the first time I've read a headline of some kind where good news followed something like "Due to legal advice". I hope the best for any service using Nitter, because the split between X and Bluesky is becoming another red vs. blue making life difficult for everyone else.
    • skeledrew 35 minutes ago
      Maybe there could be a joining path: an ActivityPub joining ATProto and Nitter/X or something so no need to miss out on anything by being on "the other".
    • add-sub-mul-div 39 minutes ago
      It's a split between user expirences that do and don't optimize for rage and culture wars and engagement bait. If there's also a de facto red vs. blue split, it's due to which community gravitates to which model of what a social network should be.
  • usern20260720 1 hour ago
    It is sad that Twitter is basically a private closed gate monopoly that people beg to use instead of developing alternatives like RSS
    • graemep 58 minutes ago
      Social media is addictive. RSS is not. Social media is profitable so worth marketing. RSS is not.
    • numpad0 6 minutes ago
      Selfhosting friction has to be close to zero for that to work. And Termux is already way too much.
    • slater 28 minutes ago
      There was a time when Twitter supported RSS, it lived at @your-username/rss

      Then they stopped it, because "eNgaGeMEnT" or w/e

  • willmeyers 1 hour ago
    When I got my first cease and desist my lawyer basically asked me if this is a hill you are willing to die on (i.e. spend enormous amounts of time and money on). I with them luck. I suspect a Go Fund Me announcement coming soon.
    • rfgplk 59 minutes ago
      You're thinking of pre-LLM times. Nowadays GPT-6 can probably advise them better than all the worlds law firms combined. And probably win too, considering the incompetence (and tech illiteracy) of human lawyers.
      • ValentineC 2 minutes ago
        A problem right now is that GPT-6 is just a chatbot, and wouldn't be able to file any counterclaims (which involve human lawyers and billable hours) when fElon decides to wage a battle of attrition in the courtrooms.
      • 15155 45 minutes ago
        You presume opposing counsel isn't using GPT-6 and other, legal-specific models trained on data ChatGPT will never gain access to. Hint: they are.

        Regardless of advice quality, legal proceedings aren't free-to-play, and the adversary in question here has bottomless pockets.

        • loa_in_ 41 minutes ago
          Such speculation is just fear mongering and that is exactly what the daft bullies want.
      • tyjen 17 minutes ago
        Advice? Maybe ballpark quality if you can avoid hallucinations. The legal connections that will help net you a win, certainly not.
      • opello 47 minutes ago
        Have citations of case law that doesn't exist been addressed? It seemed like that kind of outcome being punished might make people less likely to try relying on LLM output for legal situations without an expert human performing a review.
  • int32_64 39 minutes ago
    It seems like it would be a trivial statistical exercise to find all the nitter instance X accounts and just ban them, it's actually embarrassing they got lawyers involved instead of just doing that if they didn't want nitter to function.
  • delichon 42 minutes ago
    > Following legal advice, the Nitter project will continue.

    The word "project" doesn't make a clear distinction between the repo and the instances. Nitter is on good ground with respect to the repo. The instances will be much harder to defend. From that one sentence it isn't clear if this is what the legal advice says or not.

    Nitter changed their design such that it now requires an X account to scrape through. This was to stay functional after X removed guest accounts. This exposes them to a legal attack through the terms of service that must be accepted for the account, and to technical attack by blocking the scraping accounts.

  • leumon 32 minutes ago
  • numpad0 1 hour ago
    It'll be very funny if everything associated with Twitter branding would survive and the other one just didn't
  • petcat 1 hour ago
    The software project itself is probably fine, but 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.

    • miningtcup 1 hour ago
      The project maintainer, Zedeus, runs the most or second-most popular instance, and I assume his lawyers decided that was okay.
    • toomuchtodo 1 hour ago
      Host the infra in countries unfriendly to the US and its legal framework apparatus. Continually package the archive as torrents for distribution globally.

      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49567595

      • miningtcup 59 minutes ago
        X already knows who the maintainer is and could easily go after him.
        • toomuchtodo 57 minutes ago
          They will have to prove he’s operating it, and someone else can orchestrate. Anna’s Archive, Z Lib, Archive.today, Tor exit node patterns.

          Put a tip jar out, let’s get archiving. “You can just do things.”

    • bhhaskin 1 hour ago
      Except this is settled case law. LinkedIn tried and lost against scrapers.
      • petcat 59 minutes ago
        That was a case of scraping explicitly public data that was already available to the general public without any extra effort.
      • miningtcup 1 hour ago
        I think that this is different because Nitter uses real X accounts for scraping, rather than publicly available data.
        • Tostino 25 minutes ago
          Explain to me why that matters at all in an ethical sense. Especially given the scraping / pirating that's gone on by all of these companies in the last number of years.
  • 1matin 55 minutes ago
    Let's hope X doesn't pressure GitHub to take the repo down.

    It's actually sad to see how deeply do we depend on monopolies.

  • sparkling 1 hour ago
    So X(.ai) can scrape the entire web, but nobody can scrape X. Makes sense.
    • cdrnsf 28 minutes ago
      Of course. xAI can also run gas generators to power its data centers and pump toxins into the air around local communities. Grok can generate non-consensual nude images of women (and CSAM). Their owner can make nazi salutes and demolish agencies millions depend on. Rules, laws and ethics are for poor people.
  • jauntywundrkind 19 minutes ago
    I'm so here for an age where some of this IP protectionism felony anti-circumvention nonsense gets absolutely bulldozed. Please please please.

    It's entirely unacceptable, is suicidal corporatism to riff off the bad man, to have humanity's "public" messaging system be off limits to researchers, academics, observers. To trust a network at their word that they and they alone have a right to defend and protect us from propaganda, from malicious & shadow influence. This is not an ok basis that our information driven civilization can rest on.

    I look forward to getting out of this trap. https://bsky.app/profile/jauntywunderkind.bsky.social/post/3...