nitter.net
nitter.net
nitter.net is offline.

Nitter, the open-source, ad-free, tracker-free frontend that let people read public X posts without an account, is in trouble. The dev has just posted a new update on nitter.net.

What happened:

  • On Aug 24, 2026, X Corp sent cease-and-desist letters demanding a permanent takedown of Nitter instances and the project’s repository. A second letter with the same demands and legal threats followed on Sept 8.

  • Press reports say the letters cite the Texas Harmful Access by Computer Act and the Lanham Act, and also went to other public instances, not just nitter.net.

  • nitter.net went offline, and the GitHub repo was archived for a while.

  • On Sept 7, the dev said the project would continue with legal representation in place. In the Oct 10 update he says that was based on assurances that “have since turned out to be untrue,” and apologizes for the misleading info.

Where things stand: Nitter currently has no legal counsel. The dev (zedeus) is asking for funding and legal help from lawyers, organizations, or anyone who can help. Donations go to legal costs first, and whatever isn’t needed goes to development of Nitter or its successor.

If you’re a lawyer, work at a digital-rights org, or know someone who is, contact info and donation links are on the page: https://nitter.net/
Seven years of a free, privacy-respecting project, and the response is lawyers. Signal boost if you can.

  • 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    8·
    1 day ago

    On Sept 7, the dev said the project would continue with legal representation in place. In the Oct 10 update he says that was based on assurances that “have since turned out to be untrue,” and apologizes for the misleading info.

    Did someone scam him?

    • tempest@lemmy.ca
      8·
      1 day ago

      Law firm probably tentatively said yes they’d represent him, and then backed out once they saw all the details.

      • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
        7·
        24 hours ago

        Could be any number of things:

        • A law firm might have offered to give legal advice for what to do in response to the cease and desist, but won’t agree to represent them in a lawsuit (at least at rates that Nitter can afford).
        • A law firm might have given legal advice about one particular issue, but it didn’t comprehensively cover all the legal issues raised by the cease and desist (maybe they gave a legal opinion on the federal law issue but not the Texas law issue).
        • A law firm may have agreed to represent them for a particular price but there was a misunderstanding about how to read the pricing sheet and Nitter can’t actually afford to retain that firm.
        • Someone may have lied about being a licensed lawyer and law firm.
        • A law firm may have given advice and then rescinded that advice after the second cease and desist letter.
        • Law firm may have given advice based on erroneous understanding of the facts, and either backed out of representation or modified its advice upon learning the new facts.