Why is the journalistic standard to embed tweets (xeets?) instead of using screenshots?
An embedded tweet can be deleted, and depends on X supporting the functionality. If editing is ever introduced on the platform, it would permanently break all past articles that don’t have an independent record of the tweet (such as a full quote in the article or a screenshot). X can potentially (and maybe does) embed tracking features.
It seems like there are a lot of good reasons not to use embedded tweets, but almost every news source does it this way. Is there a good reason why?
i can only presume some sort of affiliate-linking program which compensates site owners for click-referrals to the site formerly known as Twitter, and that this is what motivates the choice.
Umm… No? That’s quite a conclusion to jump to when a quick Google search would show that no such thing exists.
I swear, sometimes this community can be as bad as anti-vaxxers when it comes to pulling shit out of their ass and stating it as fact.
In general,
If it’s only semantically plausible with reference to a given set of corpora, then it’s a hallucination.
If it’s a hallucination that satisfies an emotional need, then it has truthiness.
If it’s truthiness that is backed by a sufficiently powerful political force, then it is The Truth.
Source: it was revealed to me in a dream.
then maybe you should jump on google and look up what this means if you believe my statement was an assertion of fact.
deleted by creator
a hostile tantrum over a word they didn’t understand “makes sense to you?”
clearly you’ve just come here to pick fights and troll, so your opinion holds little value.
deleted by creator
“how dare you defend yourself against my attacks!”
with that sort of absurd reasoning and bullying, you’re surprised i hold no value in your opinion? lmao
deleted by creator
you can’t even tell the difference between a disagreement and bullying, and you wonder why your opinion holds no value? lol