[iforgotpassword]

I've never understood why people even wanted to use this. For the styling? So you can just copy some random stuff from Twitter and it looks like Twitter but is also interactive?

Just with the Facebook like-Button, you're exposing your visitors to the tracking of Twitter.

For what? Just so you can quickly copy one snippet and be done with it, instead of manually copying author name, content and link and spending 10 seconds to format this yourself.

I wish I had something constructive to say, but this always seemed like a totally unnecessary "feature" with a lot of downsides. Instead of embedding 280 characters in your website you make it download an order of magnitude more from somewhere else and then execute code to display those characters in a way someone else deems appropriate.

[elcomet]

I mean it's fairly easy to understand why people used this.

It's very convenient (just click share or use a WordPress widget to embed tweet), it always look pretty, and there are multiple actions available from the tweet: go to profile, reply, share ...

So more features for less time to set-up. This is a service like all other Service, you usually tradeoff something like privacy for convenience. Why use Dropbox when you can have your own NAS ?

[atoav]

> you usually tradeoff something like privacy for convenience

You trade GDPR-complience for convenience and all the Functions gained are not that hard to replicate..

[derefr]

One advantage I've seen people recently point out about using content transclusions in general (where the Twitter widget is an example of such), is that these provide some level of evidence that the transcluded content is really something that exists at the source. Screenshots and other "fetch and burn into the reciever" approaches can be fabricated very easily to create fake news; but it's a bit more of a technical challenge to fabricate a widget such that it appears to be pulling material from a source — especially if there's also a canonical deep-link back to said source embedded in it.

[_Algernon_]

Whats wrong with a linked screenshot?

[tommek4077]

An image is not text. Just copy the text and be done with it. You even only need to apply styles once on your site with a twitter-css class.

[2muchcoffeeman]

Worse, it seems like most of the time you'd want a screenshot to preserve the original text. Which takes less styling to look right.

[TacoSteemers]

If you use a screenshot it is a good idea to also put the text below it or in the picture's alt attribute, for screenreaders.

[andrewxdiamond]

For Twitter specifically, a link to the tweet is much more genuine than a screenshot, as screenshots can be faked, where tweets cannot be edited

[saagarjha]

For now, at least: https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1511456430024364037

[habibur]

Screen shot image <a href> linked to the tweet. No 3rd party JS still then.

[schlipity]

One small note about using a screenshot versus actual text is that a screenshot does not scale with resolution.

I think a lightly styled html box with the tweet as text would be the best of both worlds.

[shakna]

> For what? Just so you can quickly copy one snippet and be done with it, instead of manually copying author name, content and link and spending 10 seconds to format this yourself.

Unfortunately copyright law is not going to be happy with that one. [0] It's insanely complicated, but basically, as things are at the moment, the original poster has a right to retract the publication at any time. You may find yourself in legal hot water if your copy doesn't disappear at the same time as the original.

[0] https://australiacouncil.gov.au/workspace/uploads/files/soci...

[ghayes]

Under US law, you’d likely be covered by fair-use so long as you’re reporting on the tweet as a news-worthy event (versus, say, asking for lols).

[shakna]

That is precisely the argument made in Agence France Presse v Morel [0], cited in the article I linked to. One of the statements to come out of that rather drawn out and complicated case is:

> plainly sufficient for the jury to conclude that AFP’s infringement was willful under either an actual knowledge or reckless disregard theory

Assuming that you would be covered under fair use, is a "reckless disregard" for theory if you comprehend the copyright situation at all. These things are very, very, complicated and you cannot simply assume that you have the safety to copy a tweet.

[0] https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2014/08/agence...

[hackernewds]

It is for a good reason. The original content of the tweet is preserved and not editorialized. Also Twitter has explicit rules around the display of tweets

[sings]

The worst example being media organisations. Why would you cede any remaining semblance of journalistic authority by cheaply embedding tweets into a news article. Handpicked commentary from a narrow part of the internet does not constitute an expert opinion, nor does it lend you any credibility. If anything, it lets me know that I’m seeking news in the wrong place. The short term gains, if there are any real ones, seem to be obviously outweighed by the negative impacts to your reputation as a news organisation.

[bussetta]

Twitter has display requirements. https://developer.twitter.com/en/developer-terms/display-req...

[naoqj]

What are they going to do if I show a tweet in my site without complying? Sue me? DoS me?