Why is the journalistic standard to embed tweets (xeets?) instead of using screenshots?
An embedded tweet can be deleted, and depends on X supporting the functionality. If editing is ever introduced on the platform, it would permanently break all past articles that don’t have an independent record of the tweet (such as a full quote in the article or a screenshot). X can potentially (and maybe does) embed tracking features.
It seems like there are a lot of good reasons not to use embedded tweets, but almost every news source does it this way. Is there a good reason why?
It’s been common practice for well over decade now…
Embedded content lets you click on it to follow the tweet chain and see more info or even contribute to the conversation. A screenshot only shows exactly what the author decides to show you and nothing more.
Content disappearing or twitter walling itself off hasn’t been an issue until twatwaffle took over.
Sounds like we need a single click “archive.org + embed” solution.
It would also freeze the content as is
I mean to be fair you could just show the Screenshot and then link the image to the tweet (or whatever it is called now…). Best of both worlds (but more work)
Exactly. Also, screenshots can easily be doctored. An embedded tweet could not be, since you could easily click the link to see the original tweet.
So a screen shot linking to the original tweet, then?
Or they can do both. Post a screenshot and link the tweet below it so users have the option to click to the source. I don’t explicitly block twitter but it’s so bad that more often than not the embedded tweet doesn’t display when viewing the page with uBO.
‘doctoring’ can go both ways. Embedding gives more ‘doctoring power’ to original poster and X.
As far as I remember it’s part of Xitters Terms and Conditions that if you want to show a tweet you need to embed it, otherwise you’re stealing it.
And for Xitter it’s great, they still can change or delete it, they run javascript on the news page to get all your information, etc.
Lol what are they going to do if I break ToS ban me from Twitter?
They don’t care about you but yes they would probably go after a newspaper and sue them for copyright infringement.
That suit would be practically impossible, as it’s clearly Fair Use.
Fair use is a defense you have to make in court. And court is expensive.
Fair use only covers critique, parody and education, and only with a whole bunch of extra nuance (e.g. you can’t just put a clip of yourself saying you didn’t like a movie at the end of the movie and get away with hosting it on your site by claiming it was critique, and you can’t download a PDF of a textbook and get away with it by claiming it was for education). Fair use lets you do a lot less than people think.
I hate Twitter but I despise articles that just post 3 tweets and provides a barebones AI recap of the conversation.
Can you imagine a precedent it would set. Twitter would never win.
If you’re a large online news outlet doing this repeatedly: Probably sue you.
Wait, comments on Twitter are NFTs now?
Embeds update to reflect your typeface setting, scaling for larger or smaller screens, are compatible with screen readers… and you are giving immediate access to the original source. Screenshots are completely static and could be easily faked etc. Having archived copies of things is good of course but there’s no real reason to do it for the display version in a webpage
Although this provides the best experience (very broadly speaking) for new users. It only takes looking at websites from 20 years ago to realize that it ages very poorly and no one maintains the links/external media once they break.
This seems like the most reasonable (and ethical) reason for the decision. Someone else mentioned ToS, which might be a stronger (but not necessarily ethical) reason. I would think that if it is not a result of the Terms, problems with embedding strongly outweigh the benefits. If it’s just about the Terms, I’d think a good journalist should quote the text in the article (same as reporting on any public statement), then hyperlink the site.
That would fully be compatible with device and accessibility settings, and provide the same verification as the embedded X. It would be better for journalism because editing could happen from the X side in the future, including removal, which is already possible. It would be better for privacy, web integrity, etc.
It’s probably easier to do too.
Those are indeed good reasons, but there’s so much other content that doesn’t scale, like charts, graphs, and maps. If I was running a large media company, I’d rather use high-resolution screenshots than let the Muskrat alter the content of my stories.
Let him sue. I’d rather go to court than let that jackass undermine journalistic integrity.
Journalists citing twitter are lazy idiots. LAZY. Twitter has done journalism no favors despite the conventional wisdom.
i can only presume some sort of affiliate-linking program which compensates site owners for click-referrals to the site formerly known as Twitter, and that this is what motivates the choice.
Umm… No? That’s quite a conclusion to jump to when a quick Google search would show that no such thing exists.
I swear, sometimes this community can be as bad as anti-vaxxers when it comes to pulling shit out of their ass and stating it as fact.
In general,
If it’s only semantically plausible with reference to a given set of corpora, then it’s a hallucination.
If it’s a hallucination that satisfies an emotional need, then it has truthiness.
If it’s truthiness that is backed by a sufficiently powerful political force, then it is The Truth.
Source: it was revealed to me in a dream.
i can only presume
then maybe you should jump on google and look up what this means if you believe my statement was an assertion of fact.
