They are hardly copying Twitter in this regard. Twitter is doing it for fuck knows why, trying to get more money from a dieing platform or something. But Threads:
“Spam attacks have picked up,” requiring new rate limit changes.
Are mitigating spam. That is reasonable and any sane platform will have rate limits in place to stop abuse. They only question is if the rates are low enough to affect normal users or not.
So just because two companies do the same thing does not mean they are strictly copying each other, here they have different reasons as far as I can see.
If you are going to complain about something, do it for reasons that make sense. Don’t make shit up.
This is a comically pathetic article, and I really would have expected people here to engage in a modicum of critical thinking, though I’ve been learning to temper my expectations here. “Meta bad” really has been making people completely turn their brains off.
I would imagine Lemmy also has some sane rate limits to prevent you from making 1000 in a second. Cue the outrage, I guess.
They set daily read limits that were comically low. Read limits obviously don’t help with spam. They do help with scraping but it’s again so low, it seems like it would pretty much just disable scraping rather than control it. 600 tweets A DAY?
The whole, “you can pay to have a higher rate limit”, is the big telling part. And the big difference here, I believe I read that meta said to contact them if the limits are affecting you. Where as twitter just wants more money.
They are hardly copying Twitter in this regard. Twitter is doing it for fuck knows why, trying to get more money from a dieing platform or something. But Threads:
Are mitigating spam. That is reasonable and any sane platform will have rate limits in place to stop abuse. They only question is if the rates are low enough to affect normal users or not.
So just because two companies do the same thing does not mean they are strictly copying each other, here they have different reasons as far as I can see.
If you are going to complain about something, do it for reasons that make sense. Don’t make shit up.
This is a comically pathetic article, and I really would have expected people here to engage in a modicum of critical thinking, though I’ve been learning to temper my expectations here. “Meta bad” really has been making people completely turn their brains off.
I would imagine Lemmy also has some sane rate limits to prevent you from making 1000 in a second. Cue the outrage, I guess.
This article is such garbage clickbait, but of course the Lemmy audience eats it up because it validates their anti-facebook circlejerk.
Twitter did it for the same reasons - that and bots scraping data from the platform for use in datasets.
Twitter did it to get a new revenue stream charging for higher rates. The bots, who have been around for over a decade, are just an excuse.
They set daily read limits that were comically low. Read limits obviously don’t help with spam. They do help with scraping but it’s again so low, it seems like it would pretty much just disable scraping rather than control it. 600 tweets A DAY?
The whole, “you can pay to have a higher rate limit”, is the big telling part. And the big difference here, I believe I read that meta said to contact them if the limits are affecting you. Where as twitter just wants more money.