I think the math would then lead to only big sites being "good enough" to pass the twitter test as to who gets a whole domain filtered or not, and if you're running a site that someone does a bad thing on ... so much for anyone linking to you anymore on Twitter.

That seems inherently bad.

Twitter et al have already decided to become the self-anointed gatekeepers of what’s okay to post on the internet.

I missed the days when it was just Google search results we had to worry about.

Agreed. I just think this isn’t an example, or at least not an example of the worst of it.

I can’t think of any legitimate reason for my cousins who are on Twitter would want to go to JSFiddle. I’m ok with Twitter taking this stance. I’m not ok with many of the other policies.

That’s not entirely my point. The whole point of JSFiddle (which I love) is at odds with the bulk of the demographic of Twitter. If your content sharing site inadvertently has malware you can remove it, JSFiddle will always be risky.

The bulk of the people I follow on Twitter would have no clue what it was or how to even begin to understand it.

>The whole point of JSFiddle (which I love) is at odds with the bulk of the demographic of Twitter.

I'm not sure that's a line that Twitter would draw, or is even accurate.

I also suspect that most content on twitter the bulk of twitter users / demographics wouldn't care about...

This is all true, I guess I just come down to supporting twitter’s calculus on this one.

It shouldn't be twitters job to clean up after jsfiddle, who don't seem to put any effort whatsoever into mitigating malicious code beings shared on their site.

Doesn't really take much for a code sharing site to demand registration before you share code and to have a report button.