[katsume3]

> It seems strange that this article does not actually embed the tweets mentioned

That's because a tweet can be deleted by the owner of the tweet, and the embed won't show it in the article anymore. Embedding tweets in an article is usually bad practice, and it also slows down the page with unnecessary Javascript.

Frankly I see nothing wrong with just copying and pasting a Tweet, so now you have a verbatim copy of what was said. Then there is the issue of edited tweets which apparently are coming soon, giving another troll tool to users of Twitter.

[Krasnol]

They could still link to it without embedding. I don't see a reason for not doing it because even the "deleted" message is a message. It doesn't break the experience but ads information to it. In this case: the author didn't want to have this up anymore.

The utter lack of linking in internet articles is terrible. I understand that it's like free advertisement sometimes but hell...you're already reporting and the traffic from your page would ENCOURAGE potential ad clients to run ads on your page if it generates so much traffic...

[pfranz]

I often wish there were more direct citations in journalistic articles. I hate to say this, but often when trying to find sources it is cluttered up by news articles.

[boomboomsubban]

So why is embedding and linking multiple tweets from a variety of sources fine when announcing Dame Diana Rigg's death but unacceptable in this story?

[londons_explore]

I would guess the tech reporters have different policies than the Hollywood reporters...

[boomboomsubban]

Then why quote and link to Elon Musk's tweets but only quote Snowden?