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 @anon80779245 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)