• cshock@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    As a non Twitter user… reading 300/600 tweets a day seems like more than plenty. I mean the times I’ve poke around I see what maybe 60 or so tweets then move on to browsing another platform.

    And me not knowing any better this somewhat seems to make sense if you have bots that are scraping all the data for intelligence to use for advertising or AI development etc.

    Shouldn’t those bots have to pay since they are making money off data and let the individual users keep a free account?

    • dragontamer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not tweets you read. It’s tweets your web browser / app reads.

      Your web browser goes through 600 tweets in just 2 minutes of scrolling, maybe less.

      • Slitted@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That seems like something that should have been found during initial testing. Unless of course, they didn’t test at all.

      • TheGeneral@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Plus let’s be real anyone with a decent scraper isn’t gonna not the limit (will just switch accounts).

      • TheGeneral@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Plus let’s be real anyone with a decent scraper isn’t gonna not the limit (will just switch accounts).

      • TheGeneral@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Plus let’s be real anyone with a decent scraper isn’t gonna not the limit (will just switch accounts).

    • FelisCatus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      The thing is that it wasn’t based on tweets but background API calls, and some people were hitting that limit just by logging in or scrolling for 5 minutes.

      It also doesn’t make sense because it’s easy to get around this by creating new bots. They’re only really hurting user engagement.

    • Feirdro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      My thought, too. It seems like a sensible measure. Any one smarter than me want to ELI5 why rate limits are bad?

      • SuperSleuth
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The end goal of a social media platform is for users to use your platform. You want them engaging with content and ads. Rate limits are actually quite sensible if you want to prevent bots or data scraping, but the Twitter is being far too restrictive.

        Lots of people are claiming to get rate limited after a few minutes of normal scrolling. Which makes me think these limits include replies as well. Realistically you’re not scrolling through, and Twitter isn’t loading, 600 posts for a least a couple hours. Even then, do you not want people using your platform?

        • Feirdro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If they’re including replies, isn’t that’s one Taylor swift tweet?

          Thanks, makes a lot more sense now.