nitter.net is back online and the Github has had a commit 5 days ago!
@team it could be reinstated
8 Likes
Reliability on it being active at all times will always be in question.
6 Likes
No instance is 100% reliable. Nitter technically never 100% shutdown because there was always xcancel.com continuing the work.
2 Likes
In the same way Blockbuster “technically never 100% shutdown” because there is that one in Oregon. 
3 Likes
These are finicky front ends and not reliable as new ones come up and old ones can go away. So, adding this to PG resources recommendation list is not a good idea and makes little sense (to me atleast).
2 Likes
the only truly reliable Nitter instance has been xcancel and they specifically requested not to be reccomended.
2 Likes
Did you even read my OP? Nitter is back by the main dev along with his website nitter.net
Again, having an instance serving everyone with no downtime, as was tge case with XCancel, isn’t the same as your example.
I recommend the official nitter. BTW there are 5 running nitter instances and counting. Instances · zedeus/nitter Wiki · GitHub
@team I don’t see any reason why we can’t put back Nitter as it is now maintained again. Thoughts?
Sometimes, I don’t want to post here as people seem often negative. Why can’t we cheer an OSS project is back?
1 Like
Yes, but the point here is for how long? Its been like a week. Its a notoriously unreliable service. Pump the brakes.
You mean the instance that advocates for people to self-host and not rely on them because “Those can stop working at any time on the decision of the social network behind.”
You are going to have a lot of issues on forums if you get your feelings hurt anytime people disagree with you.
1 Like
While I am delighted that nitter is back and maintained, we cannot list it yet for the reason that @anon29374801 already mentionend. We cannot really list software where its maintaince is uncertain. People shouldn’t have to check the PG website every week to see if they are still up to date.
We rather wait to see if a project is truly able to stand on its own for a while to be listed. This way when someone chooses something we recommend, they can have a certain guarantee that it is not going to dissappear tommorow.
4 Likes
That’s true but that is just the nature of frontends in my experience. Most of the (web based) frontends I’ve used long term which haven’t suffered outages, intermittent breakages, frequent downtime, or eventually been beaten into submission. It’s one reason I don’t think recommendating specific instances (even more reliable ones) is a good idea.
Being reliant on a hostile service (e.g. Nitter’s with Twitter, Piped with Youtube, Barinsta with Instagram) seems inherently fragile. The more popular the frontend gets, the more of a threat it becomes to the service providers business model, and the more likely they are to make life difficult for the frontend, or its users.
the only truly reliable Nitter instance has been xcancel
I’ve become increasingly curious about why that is.
What makes xcancel seemingly more resilient. Is it simply the rate limiting they impose, do they have other technical means, are they more proactive in rotating IP addresses or other identifiers? Does anyone have info or informed speculation about this?
(I’ve been really impressed with Xcancel’s reliability so far. But as far as I understand, Xcancel is just a Nitter instance)
Off topic
That’s true. But I also don’t think that that is a totally fair characterization of what @Encounter5729 was expressing. I think that most of us here would acknowledge that there is a negativity bias in large parts of privacy, security, and foss spaces (and just the social internet more broadly), and that at times we as individuals contribute to that, even when we don’t mean to (I know I have been guilty of this)
Announcement thread from the owner:
They had to make changes to continue maintaining it after Nitter “died”
I don’t understand how people would need to check the website to use a frontend.
Zedeus stopped developing Nitter because it seemed impossible to make it work. Now though, it seems to have stabilise and X hasn’t rate-limited standard accounts too much.
Invidious is now basically a one-man project, at least there is only one working instance. So it isn’t inherently more reliable.
Now
People should self-host indeed. And it is a fact that any frontend can stop working if the social network behind goes far enough.
My point is that Nitter never died, not that we should recommend Xcancel directly.
If anything, the fact that Zedeus went back developing Nitter shows he can adapt to new circumstances.
I guess I don’t really see giving up on a project for multiple months and then coming back after other instances had already figured out how to make it work as some great example of adaptability. The main benefit so far is that people can go back to using the main github to self-host instead of using a fork.
Anyway as @Niek-de-Wilde said, I am happy they are back, its great news. I just dont see any reason to rush reccommending the service.
Off Topic
Sure. I just think “threatening” to not post because you had your feelings hurt as @Encounter5729 did is not a productive way to deal with the situation and added nothing of value to the thread. Contacting the moderators, reaching out to community members who may have offended you privatly, is what should be done.
I answered your post, If you don’t agree it’s fine. But why said I threatened, talk like I wasn’t here (3rd personn), and tell me what I should do ?
1 Like
Glad to see the devs back, always good to have more good fellas around.
When it comes to reinstating the recommended status, I do agree with PG team that PG needs to observe a longer period.
2 Likes