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?
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.
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 your 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?
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?
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.
That seems like something that should have been found during initial testing. Unless of course, they didn’t test at all.
Plus let’s be real anyone with a decent scraper isn’t gonna not the limit (will just switch accounts).
Plus let’s be real anyone with a decent scraper isn’t gonna not the limit (will just switch accounts).
Plus let’s be real anyone with a decent scraper isn’t gonna not the limit (will just switch accounts).
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.
deleted by creator
My thought, too. It seems like a sensible measure. Any one smarter than me want to ELI5 why rate limits are bad?
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 your 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?
If they’re including replies, isn’t that’s one Taylor swift tweet?
Thanks, makes a lot more sense now.