This is such a HN take. 99% of the people, even the ones who copy embed links, don't even know what js is. This is a problem for everyone, not just literally you and I.
I don't know why you are (half) working off the presumption anyone cares about the post-hoc desire of the author.
This isn't tricky at all imo.
Just as if I pasted the text directly, I expect my copying of the content to have the same lifetime as the page I put it on. This is irrespective of anybody's wishes after the fact.
Nobody has the expectation that the text would disappear from my page if copied directly - so why should behavior change in any other case?
The original author of the tweet also has the intent. An unfortunate side effect of having a voice, is that sometimes people will listen and make notes.
Not necessarily. The example VOX article[1] had Trump's tweets embedded in the article, which are now hidden. Trump didn't delete those tweets. He was banned.
>There are many more cases of deletions than banned ones, let's not think of the exception as the rule
But that isn't the exception. Banned users tend to be the ones that have some level of public interest, as evidenced by the VOX quote.
>And the blog author still has the text as well
That's right and maybe in some way this new policy accidentally leads to good things, in that it may incentive sites that embed Twitter's content on their page, to simply bypass that.
You have badly missed the most crucial message of the post.
When you copy the embed link, you are copying the string literal of the tweet too.
You put this text on your site. You are the one retaining it.
The twitter module is hiding the text from the rendered page, rather than loading the local copy.