Last week there was a major change on Twitter. Without login, you couldn't navigate the web. Twitter reduced the possibility of clicking user profiles and threads, which impacted places such as pasted or encapsulated chickens, as in this Sustatu news in which at the time a Kai Nakai enveloped chio was pasted.

According to some analyses, the millions of tweets encapsulated started to get extra orders to Twitter servers because clicks didn't work, trying people or systems repeatedly, resulting in a DOS problem, server foreclosure versus peer-of-service or excessive orders. A DOS is usually an attack, a cracker network sends millions of requests to the attacking servers to collapse. In this case it is an auto-DOS: Twitter's suicidal decision has led to the collapse of its servers.

And why? Maybe because Twitter wants to cut server costs. It seems that with the hosting service on Amazon, AWS, the hosting agreement ended on June 30 and since July 1 could have problems if Twitter does not agree to the extension of the contract. What is that annual expenditure? It's about a billion dollar bill, but you know. In any case, Twitter seems to be in the urgent need to reduce the cost by negotiating with AWS or reducing its use.

In any case, on 1 July the waiters, instead of waking up those restricted by load, referred to the opposite, in the face of a collapse DOS. And hence Muskiz's decision (and explanation with excuses), the restriction of use:

• Common users, we can see 600 tweets a day.
• payout, 6,000 tweets
• 300 tweets for new users (we have not known since when).

We've read this hypothesis on Twitter, in this summary, and we found it reasonable.

These measures have increased by up to 50% by 2 July, although the media effect has been enormous. The meaning of Twitter for most users is fast circulation and constant consumption of information and opinion. Where most sources of information have been installed paywall or "walls" of payment, free Twitter information works properly.

If the 600 or 900 tweets limit persists, Twitter will end up equating itself to the traditional paywall. In media like The New York Times, the same thing happens. 10 free items a month and if you want more, pay. Bringing Twitter to a model -- it seems that's what this weekend's decision brings.

In the meantime, the manoeuvre that will help to reduce costs is to see Elon Muskiz. But this can't be good at increasing revenue: advertisers pay because many eyes can see their ads on Twitter. If the time and inspections to viewers are reduced, the ads will be less obligatory.

And alternatives for bird lovers? Mastodon, they say again. In Basque, https://mastodon.eus/ and https://mastodon.jalgi.eus/