Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Links are incredibly useful. Leaving aside the dubious benefit of the idea that we want everything to "be inside the same app" (an idea that is essentially 'platform lock-in rephrased as a feature'), a huge amount of useful content is already on web pages with URLs. The ability to share those resources quickly is essential. There's zero benefit to forcing users into copying and pasting existing text into a medium with extreme formatting limitations and no ability to handle dynamic content or inline images. And there is negative benefit from moving content from the open web to a site that requires a login.



This doesn’t really make sense without a well reasoned out argument.

How can your opinion outweigh that of the various decision makers who originally agreed to implement it…?


> Berners-Lee, the creator of the Web, chose the name “World Wide Web” because he wanted to emphasize that, in this global hypertext system, anything could link to anything else

https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/01/why-the-web...

The net is fundamentally about linking things together.


[flagged]


Berners-Lee was brought up as a rejoinder to various decision makers who originally agreed to implement it, being that the www is more original than twitter, and fwiw he's not an American.

It's quite exasperating to find someone arguing that there is some benefit to regression towards applications which don't link into other applications. Why be on the web at all?


You haven’t addressed the question.

Why does it matter what he thinks or thought about this or that topic?

Opinions can’t suddenly transmute into facts, regardless of anyone that has ever existed in human history.


If someone limits your options to only two, or even one source of resources, are you better off?

This discussion thread emerged from the suggestion of "maybe that's a good thing." Is it?

It's a question of trust, competition, and whether there's so much destruction of honest competition that only the destructive and twisted competition remains, keeping people afraid to venture into the unknown, willing to perpetuate the cycle of destroying competitors and endangering civilization itself.


How does this relate to the prior comment?


A walled garden can protect, or it can enslave. Eye of the beholder. This thread was about creating a walled garden by downranking external links.


This comment is so deep in the comment chain that it makes no sense to talk generally about this when the thread starting comments are available for you to reply too…

Take it to one of the parent comments.


Are we not talking about opinion vs opinion ? What twitter engineers think is good for twitter vs what web engineers think is good for the web ? I don't really follow what your assertion is, I would be happy to elaborate my position if you elaborate yours.


I’m not going to compare the relative merits of one set opinion vs another set of opinions…

Because there is no end to that and my time is valuable.


Sorry for wasting your time my dude feel free to send me an invoice


Intentionally trolling is only going to get you banned…

If you want to do that, and burn your account, go ahead. I’m not going to stop you.


> How can your opinion outweigh that of the various decision makers who originally agreed to implement it?


>This doesn’t really make sense without a well reasoned out argument.

It seemed well reasoned to me... ?


> How can your opinion outweigh that of the various decision makers who originally agreed to implement it…?

Through subjectivity, of course.


there’s just one decision maker in Twitter


Now there is. Didn't used to be, and it cost a startling amount of money for that to be the case, and it was done to achieve a purpose rather than to make Twitter better at being Twitter. Something of a pyrrhic victory, that.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: