Twitter Terms of Service Diff(diffchecker.com)
diffchecker.com
Twitter Terms of Service Diff
https://www.diffchecker.com/N1cAYuis
149 comments
By the same logic, are social media companies somehow obligated to never shutdown as long as they have users?
If not, can they shut down and then only come back for users using non-grandfathered terms?
If so, can they shut down for only users using grandfathered terms?
Aren't we now back to where we started?
---
I disagree pretty fundamentally that you have any right to have a company continue to host content for you (which is equivalent to having a right to having a company repeat what you said to anyone who asks - which is clearly a free speech violation) short of them signing a contract with you guaranteeing that.
I agree that as a user it's very frustrating when something you use changes what it is, but I don't see how a social media platform is any different from a bar in that regards. They both derive a lot of their value from their users, it's frustrating for the users of both if they fundamentally change who they are, but it's their right do that anyways.
If not, can they shut down and then only come back for users using non-grandfathered terms?
If so, can they shut down for only users using grandfathered terms?
Aren't we now back to where we started?
---
I disagree pretty fundamentally that you have any right to have a company continue to host content for you (which is equivalent to having a right to having a company repeat what you said to anyone who asks - which is clearly a free speech violation) short of them signing a contract with you guaranteeing that.
I agree that as a user it's very frustrating when something you use changes what it is, but I don't see how a social media platform is any different from a bar in that regards. They both derive a lot of their value from their users, it's frustrating for the users of both if they fundamentally change who they are, but it's their right do that anyways.
I just don't think it should be legal for a company to offer to store something for you and then randomly stop storing it for you. As far as I know, if you buy a storage location, even if you stop paying for it the people at the storage facility can't just immediately toss your stuff into the street: there is a legally mandated process by which they have to store things, contact you, and later work with the state to rid themselves of your stuff. The problem for me then becomes one of making sure that the relationship involved feels like the relationship that these people put in their giant pile of click-through legalese. (And if the result of this is that free social networks supported by the potential future promise of ad revenue become impossible to legally build as the insurance required becomes too high, all I can say is "good riddance": the world will be all for the better if these companies have to figure out customer-focused sustainable business models before launching.)
I have recently been getting emails from Photobucket saying that I need to pay for their service now or they will delete my photos. There is no option to download my photos without paying. If I want to access them at all then I must pay.
I don't know what to think about whether this is right or wrong but it sure feels scummy. It also makes my worry about what might happen when bigger internet companies are down on their luck.
I don't know what to think about whether this is right or wrong but it sure feels scummy. It also makes my worry about what might happen when bigger internet companies are down on their luck.
> There is no option to download my photos without paying
If I was going to target something here to fix, it would be this. Holding your data hostage feels much more legally suspect than just deciding to no longer run photobucket and deleting your data outright (before, for instance, selling the hard-drives to recoup costs).
In fact, I think the GDPR may already have fixed this for people protected by it? If you have photos you care about you might try sending a GDPR data request and see what happens (even if you're not covered by it, there's no harm in trying).
If I was going to target something here to fix, it would be this. Holding your data hostage feels much more legally suspect than just deciding to no longer run photobucket and deleting your data outright (before, for instance, selling the hard-drives to recoup costs).
In fact, I think the GDPR may already have fixed this for people protected by it? If you have photos you care about you might try sending a GDPR data request and see what happens (even if you're not covered by it, there's no harm in trying).
I'm not sure a bar is the best analogy here though. Yes a bar also derives value from it's users in a way, but a customers value there only really exists for as long as they are in the building. The customer doesn't invest their time and effort in long term value that exists after they leave. There's a moderate community aspect (referrals, recommendations, etc) but not as strongly as social media (or any contribution based site). Feeling a bar owes you something here seems like a stretch unless they solicit donations/volunteers to do a renovation or something.
With social media sites a user is adding content that continues to provide value over time. The user is investing their time, expertise and energy (and often IP as well since some sites claim ownership of contributions), into the site. When they leave, that content often sticks around. It's reasonable for the user to feel that that site owes them something in return.
Legally and realistically I'm not sure how that can be implemented, but the desire there is reasonable and different than a bar.
With social media sites a user is adding content that continues to provide value over time. The user is investing their time, expertise and energy (and often IP as well since some sites claim ownership of contributions), into the site. When they leave, that content often sticks around. It's reasonable for the user to feel that that site owes them something in return.
Legally and realistically I'm not sure how that can be implemented, but the desire there is reasonable and different than a bar.
Sure, a bar isn't a perfect analogy, I used it because it was the first thing that came to mind that got the point across about community building (which seemed to be the main thing the person I was responding to considered to be of value).
Maybe a stronger analogy would be a maker space, since the community building bit is at least as strong as with a bar (maybe stronger), and there's some sort of "content" that you create as well (though unlike on twitter, much of the content is physical property instead of information).
You might reach a conclusion that you should have GDPR like data-rights as a result of that analogy, but I don't think it materially affects any of the conclusions I'm arguing in the post about investment of time and energy not giving you the right to continued service.
Maybe a stronger analogy would be a maker space, since the community building bit is at least as strong as with a bar (maybe stronger), and there's some sort of "content" that you create as well (though unlike on twitter, much of the content is physical property instead of information).
You might reach a conclusion that you should have GDPR like data-rights as a result of that analogy, but I don't think it materially affects any of the conclusions I'm arguing in the post about investment of time and energy not giving you the right to continued service.
it is simply balance of power between parties like all human affairs
if you want to improve it - work to increase accountability (so more liars and cheaters get caught) & accessibility (so young and fresh minds have opportunity) and these two things together benefit new competitors over abusive incumbents, and society as a whole
if you want to improve it - work to increase accountability (so more liars and cheaters get caught) & accessibility (so young and fresh minds have opportunity) and these two things together benefit new competitors over abusive incumbents, and society as a whole
Or how about another different (maybe controversial take) -
Archetypal TOS
If you run a bank, unless you're doing something incredibly sketchy, your TOS will very closely resemble Bank B.
If you run a social media company, unless you're doing something incredibly sketchy, your TOS will very closely resemble social media company B.
ETC
How about we all agree that the archetypal TOS for any given archetype should be readable by someone with a 9th grade education or below and if you deviate from those terms, you must clearly explain why you are so different and special.
Idk, I just think we should start coming up with more clever solutions.
This doesn't even visit the idea of completely inverting the social media / banking / blah blah whatever industry onto its head by allowing any general user complete control over data / finances, but obviously that would have huge benefits if we can tackle the usability problem for average Joe.
Archetypal TOS
If you run a bank, unless you're doing something incredibly sketchy, your TOS will very closely resemble Bank B.
If you run a social media company, unless you're doing something incredibly sketchy, your TOS will very closely resemble social media company B.
ETC
How about we all agree that the archetypal TOS for any given archetype should be readable by someone with a 9th grade education or below and if you deviate from those terms, you must clearly explain why you are so different and special.
Idk, I just think we should start coming up with more clever solutions.
This doesn't even visit the idea of completely inverting the social media / banking / blah blah whatever industry onto its head by allowing any general user complete control over data / finances, but obviously that would have huge benefits if we can tackle the usability problem for average Joe.
Hmm. I would also very much like to have something like this. But on the other hand, we already have something like that, it's just called law and contracts(and more specifically TOS) already specify what is different than in the law (like e.g. which court to use etc.
So if there were archetypal contracts and they would be balanced or even slightly favor users, there would just be longer TOS to counter them and every company will have the same boilerplate again.
So in that case this archetype will have to come from the industry or politics will have to force them to do something like this. This will then also have (at least) the following side-effects:
1. Lawyers of companies teaming up and tightening their TOS even more 2. Unclarified effects on the participating companies if parts of the common TOS get invalidated/overturned by a court decision 3. Since companies (are maybe forced to) work together, there is the risk of a cartel, since <agreeing on contract conditions to be the same across an industry> is pretty much the definition of a cartel.
To take care of all of that, legislation needs to be first-class and I can't see that happening.
So if there were archetypal contracts and they would be balanced or even slightly favor users, there would just be longer TOS to counter them and every company will have the same boilerplate again.
So in that case this archetype will have to come from the industry or politics will have to force them to do something like this. This will then also have (at least) the following side-effects:
1. Lawyers of companies teaming up and tightening their TOS even more 2. Unclarified effects on the participating companies if parts of the common TOS get invalidated/overturned by a court decision 3. Since companies (are maybe forced to) work together, there is the risk of a cartel, since <agreeing on contract conditions to be the same across an industry> is pretty much the definition of a cartel.
To take care of all of that, legislation needs to be first-class and I can't see that happening.
This is probably not super controversial, especially here. But, I need to point out TOS changes are currently only applied after mutual agreement. You agree by continuing to use the service (that may be a controversial statement here, but not really elsewhere). I would disagree with the implicit statement that Twitter owes any of its users anything, or at least that if Twitter does, so does Politico.
This is an interesting idea, but it feels like it would be just about impossible to enforce. It would would also mean violations of terms that were added to take care of bad actors later wouldn't apply to earlier offenders, which would leave the "reason for the rule" still able to engage with the platform in the same manner. It seems like a bit more than a headache, from what I can tell.
> When I invest hours into helping to flourish a community
Stop working for free.
Stop working for free.
It's not for free, we build communities to participate in them.
That is in fact a significant component to their proposal.
> You should be given the choice...
Sure, that would be nice, but the system is not set up in a way such that ethics and generosity are driving factors in the decision making process of corporate executives. Whatever _should_ be is just a fantasy.
> I disagree with the notion that you can stop using it, if you don’t agree with the new TOS.
What is there to disagree with? You have the choice to use your small bit of leverage and withhold your data and content contributions if you don't like the trade-offs of the deal being proffered.
> I understand that causes some operational headaches, but it’s just cost of running a social media company.
The operation cost is nothing compared to the legal liability. From the point of view of the social media company the risk and lack of flexibility downsides far, far outweigh any possible good-will upside to be gained from users.
Sure, that would be nice, but the system is not set up in a way such that ethics and generosity are driving factors in the decision making process of corporate executives. Whatever _should_ be is just a fantasy.
> I disagree with the notion that you can stop using it, if you don’t agree with the new TOS.
What is there to disagree with? You have the choice to use your small bit of leverage and withhold your data and content contributions if you don't like the trade-offs of the deal being proffered.
> I understand that causes some operational headaches, but it’s just cost of running a social media company.
The operation cost is nothing compared to the legal liability. From the point of view of the social media company the risk and lack of flexibility downsides far, far outweigh any possible good-will upside to be gained from users.
> What is there to disagree with? You have the choice to use your small bit of leverage and withhold your data and content contributions if you don't like the trade-offs of the deal being proffered.
I think this would be fair if the company were forced to delete your data and never be able to use it again if you no longer agreed to the ToS.
I think this would be fair if the company were forced to delete your data and never be able to use it again if you no longer agreed to the ToS.
There are two pretty fundamental problems with this:
1) The services are free, one is not paying for a given, well-defined, services, like in the case where contracts are actually binding.
2) Even in the above case (payment+contract), a contract may have provisions specified on how it can be changed; and most do.
1) The services are free, one is not paying for a given, well-defined, services, like in the case where contracts are actually binding.
2) Even in the above case (payment+contract), a contract may have provisions specified on how it can be changed; and most do.
You have that choice by using the Fediverse.
The advantage of a company and its TOS is that new standards can be establish quickly and innovation can happen. The social networks of old and the Fediverse faded into the background because maintaining old standards becomes an obstacle to innovation.
The advantage of a company and its TOS is that new standards can be establish quickly and innovation can happen. The social networks of old and the Fediverse faded into the background because maintaining old standards becomes an obstacle to innovation.
I love the idea as a user, but I can't imagine how a site would handle millions of users agreeing to various TOS versions.
Sounds horrifying from a UX and design standpoint.
Sounds horrifying from a UX and design standpoint.
Keep a copy of each version in a database. Store the version number in user account. Allow a link to see the version you agreed to, and a link to see the latest. Click OK to update to the latest and set that version number in your account.
I don't think implementing a version control on TOS is particularly problematic - I think the business side of it is a way bigger problem - every user has agreed to different rules. Sounds like a nightmare for moderation, litigation, and decision making.
I don't think implementing a version control on TOS is particularly problematic - I think the business side of it is a way bigger problem - every user has agreed to different rules. Sounds like a nightmare for moderation, litigation, and decision making.
IANAL but I think you are probably subject to both versions of the TOS. You granted them a license to the content you posted under the old TOS, and those terms are still valid. Future content grants them a license under the new terms.
I'm assuming the TOS you originally agreed to had a clause that is something like "we can unilaterally change this." So, you could I guess check the TOS when you are making an account, and only use sites that don't have a clause like this. Likely this will significantly reduce you selection of social media sites... this just seems to me to indicate that investing too much effort into improving social media communities is not a worthwhile endeavor (or, maybe you find it to be a fun hobby, so just do it for fun and don't expect any payback).
Realistically most sites want to exploit people like you.
Realistically most sites want to exploit people like you.
This is why it is in your best interest to pull people from social media to your own stuff like a blog and email news letter. In the current world they can do what they want.
I understand the users perspective but this will definitely add a lot of cost because it will require maintaining different data processing pipelines.
Suddenly, Twitter will have backward compatibility issues at hand. I think, "if you don't like our new ToS we will delete your account, here is your data have a nice day" is a fair approach because at no point Twitter signed SLA with their users.
Suddenly, Twitter will have backward compatibility issues at hand. I think, "if you don't like our new ToS we will delete your account, here is your data have a nice day" is a fair approach because at no point Twitter signed SLA with their users.
What if the ToS change is to curb abuse? Can users just opt-out and continue their abuse?
What if the abuse is costing Twitter significant money? I see language about decompiling. Do they have to continue providing service to companies who may be exploiting loopholes in the ToS?
What if the abuse is costing Twitter significant money? I see language about decompiling. Do they have to continue providing service to companies who may be exploiting loopholes in the ToS?
Love the idea, but I don't see how this would work in real-life scenario. I think it would be to much trouble.
This is a nice tool to see what's actually changed, useful!
Also, I don't understand how it's not a legal requirement to show an easy to understans view of the changes made when a company changes the terms of your agreement with them.
Almost every company sends a "we've updated the terms, yay!" with little to no details on what's actually been changed. A few provide a high-level overview of the supposed purpose of the changes, which I suppose is a start.
Also, I don't understand how it's not a legal requirement to show an easy to understans view of the changes made when a company changes the terms of your agreement with them.
Almost every company sends a "we've updated the terms, yay!" with little to no details on what's actually been changed. A few provide a high-level overview of the supposed purpose of the changes, which I suppose is a start.
Shameless plug for Changewatch [0], a work-in-progress aimed at making it easier to keep track of changing terms and policies. Feedback very welcome.
[0] https://www.changewatch.co.uk
[0] https://www.changewatch.co.uk
I'd like one of those for my apartment lease
Almost as if they could be published as markdown files in git repositories, with changes visible as diffs like any other plaintext content? :)
When a company changes their terms of service you can go demand they cancel your membership if you don't agree. But since you don't pay for twitter it's sort of moot.
There are some paid users of Twitter, called Twitter Blue [1].
[1] https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/twitter-blue
[1] https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/twitter-blue
Sure, but if I don't know what they're changing it's hard to know if I want to cancel or not.
Is this the case in the U.S.?
Got any handy references to specific laws in this regard?
This is basic contract law but you'll likely need to review the specific contract in question to see if they have any clauses you've agreed to about cancellation.
But if you have an agreement that one side unilaterally changes and the other side doesn't agree you probably don't have a contract anymore.
But if you have an agreement that one side unilaterally changes and the other side doesn't agree you probably don't have a contract anymore.
Can you demand they return all the personal data they've taken under the old lisence? Because you pay them in data.
The updated contract my bank send me had a nearly identical website to the one above linked, so you could easily see the changes they made.
What bank? I’m shopping around for a new one.
Mine does this also. It's Erste Group https://www.erstegroup.com/. I also like they online banking. And if you register for a free developer account you get even API access for you bank accounts.
That is awesome. Unfortunately I live in the once-great country called America, which just isn’t too advanced in those matters.
It was ebase, but not sure if this helps you as they are European/German.
diffchecker is great! I have it bookmarked (by which I mean I type `di` and then down arrow), and I use it all the time.
I’m surprised that they haven’t added the “recognition of Mars as a free planet” line. [1]
[1] https://futurism.com/starlink-terms-of-service-demands-users-recognise-mars-free-planet/ampTOS diffs should be the default format for presenting TOS updates.
I think that this format works fine as well . Strikethrough outdated stuff, refer with a link "superseded by #222" and then follow with the current valid text. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/L4591.htm#art17.
Agreed! We track ours on GitHub, and use that as the source of truth.
Looks like the only substantive differences are:
You agree that you will not work around any technical limitations in the software provided to you as part of the Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits ..
and a pointer to a different doc with terms for paid services.
You agree that you will not work around any technical limitations in the software provided to you as part of the Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits ..
and a pointer to a different doc with terms for paid services.
I'm really not a fan of sites that pop up "Log in with Google" with your account details prefilled. It's creepy.
I don't like it either. You can thankfully turn it off in your Google settings.
https://www.howtogeek.com/735152/how-to-turn-off-the-sign-in...
https://www.howtogeek.com/735152/how-to-turn-off-the-sign-in...
Thank you! I try my hardest not to use Google for anything besides Gmail and YouTube and that popup always infuriated me. Had no idea you could turn it off.
It's Google who knows your data, not the site.
I completely understand that - but it's still creepy, and it's a reminder of how big tech follows you around the internet. As soon as I see it, I choose to leave the website.
[deleted]
I did not experience any such thing when clicking on this link. I use FF and Ubuntu, but I do have a Google account that is linked to plenty of other stuff.
your browser or password manager is pre-filling the details, not the site.
No, this is Google providing authentication with your Google account to third-party websites. If you are already logged into a Google account, it suggests that you log in with that account with a popup saying "Continue as <your name>" and shows your email and avatar.
It's an iframe so the website itself doesn't have access to your data, but this is not obvious just from looking at it - it looks like part of the site. To me it feels like it teaches users to trust websites in ways that make them susceptible to phishing.
It's an iframe so the website itself doesn't have access to your data, but this is not obvious just from looking at it - it looks like part of the site. To me it feels like it teaches users to trust websites in ways that make them susceptible to phishing.
Yeah, that’s why I dislike it as well. Imagine the same “sign in with google popup” but it’s just a floated div on the page. A user who uses the “continue as button” might be comfortable typing their password in there, thinking it’s part of the browser
Ah, I didn't know that it's an iframe and I'm always a bit creeped out by it (it really isn't obvious!). Thanks!
tl;dr this adds a clause to forbid reserve engineering and bypassing "technical limitations"
> You agree that you will not work around any technical limitations in the software provided to you as part of the Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits.
> You agree that you will not work around any technical limitations in the software provided to you as part of the Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits.
This is equivalent to a newspaper forbidding you from clipping out the articles, or a car manufacturer forbidding you from looking under the hood.
It's preposterous that we allow any kind of legitimacy to 'contracts' such as these, that seek to at once control us and keep us ignorant in relation to items and services that fill our homes.
But instead of explicitly forbidding such clauses, we're actually writing them into law with anti-circumvention and reverse-engineering (i.e. examining how stuff works) restrictions. It's obscene.
It's preposterous that we allow any kind of legitimacy to 'contracts' such as these, that seek to at once control us and keep us ignorant in relation to items and services that fill our homes.
But instead of explicitly forbidding such clauses, we're actually writing them into law with anti-circumvention and reverse-engineering (i.e. examining how stuff works) restrictions. It's obscene.
Any illegal clause of a contract can't be enforced. However, it can be litigated and I don't want to be litigated by a tech company.
That's the real sword of damocles: not the illegal contracts but of the combination of concentrated wealth and its ability to selectively enforce its own rules.
That's the real sword of damocles: not the illegal contracts but of the combination of concentrated wealth and its ability to selectively enforce its own rules.
As an end user, let them come. Suing me over some illegal clause on an illegible contract with all of the evidence of not being open to evaluation before I entered it is a sure losing proposition.
But if I was thinking about buying something from them as a company, I would take that line very seriously.
But if I was thinking about buying something from them as a company, I would take that line very seriously.
> It's preposterous that we allow any kind of legitimacy to 'contracts' such as these
Big chunk of US GDP depends on IP, that IP is disproportionately in the hands of big corporations, big corporations can legally bribe, sorry lobby US politicians, we get anti-consumer legislation exported world-wide as a result.
Big chunk of US GDP depends on IP, that IP is disproportionately in the hands of big corporations, big corporations can legally bribe, sorry lobby US politicians, we get anti-consumer legislation exported world-wide as a result.
Good news! There's a Twitter alternative that's open source and practically requires you to look under the hood: Mastodon.
In the general case I agree with your sentiment and this is why I believe open source and self hosted alternatives are important, because they are the escape hatch from all the problems inherent in corporate platforms.
In the general case I agree with your sentiment and this is why I believe open source and self hosted alternatives are important, because they are the escape hatch from all the problems inherent in corporate platforms.
The word you are looking for is analogous, not equivalent.
No, equivalent. It may relate to a different, more intangible object (website vs. car), but it strips away the same rights.
In what sense is it equivalent? Legal? Ethical? Moral?
Equivalent in the rights it takes away. 'Rights' in a moral, not legal sense - they may not be codified in any law. In the same way one's right to free speech is said to be curtailed, regardless of if their specific legal system recognizes such a right.
[deleted]
I wonder if diff is considered a "reverse engineering tool"
I wonder if User-Agent "spoofing" is a "work around".
That's what they do, you focus on one level, the magicians use misdirection.
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out."
Slow golf clap.
This is not a criticism of Twitter. There are issues with these platforms and different values, but social media gives untold millions a voice, and the alternative is a monopoly.
I wonder if User-Agent "spoofing" is a "work around".
That's what they do, you focus on one level, the magicians use misdirection.
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out."
Slow golf clap.
This is not a criticism of Twitter. There are issues with these platforms and different values, but social media gives untold millions a voice, and the alternative is a monopoly.
Does that vague "bypassing 'technical limitations'" clause also cover tweeting messages more than 250 characters by screenshotting your notes app I wonder?
I thought this question was meant as a joke, but after seeing the long chain of replies I am not so sure.
(I think it would be silly if this "technical limitations" clause is intended to ban all communications longer than 280 characters, unless they also intend to ban threads of posts summing up to more than 280 characters)
(I think it would be silly if this "technical limitations" clause is intended to ban all communications longer than 280 characters, unless they also intend to ban threads of posts summing up to more than 280 characters)
Obviously not, no.
What makes it obviously so?
Simple logic? Twitter is not going to consider posting images of text to be a violation of their TOS. Duh.
Obviously they do. To quote their TOS:
> You agree that you will not work around any technical limitations in the software provided to you as part of the Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits.
Go to twitter right now and try to post a message containing 300 characters. You can't do it. It is a technical limitation. Now make a screenshot of that text and post it. You just worked around a technical limitation and are now in blatant violation of their TOS.
> You agree that you will not work around any technical limitations in the software provided to you as part of the Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits.
Go to twitter right now and try to post a message containing 300 characters. You can't do it. It is a technical limitation. Now make a screenshot of that text and post it. You just worked around a technical limitation and are now in blatant violation of their TOS.
coldpie(1)
What’s more likely here: that Twitter intends to ban people for posting screenshots of text, or that this clause doesn’t apply to that?
> not work around any technical limitations ... reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software
If I understand correctly, Twitter users and whoever else who agrees with these ToS surrenders their right to explore how Twitter software works, reverse engineer it, etc. ... "except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits".
While all the other people who are not in any contractual relationship with Twitter are free to do all these things.
It is interesting to see that people who use services like Twitter actually have _less_ rights in some areas than other people who are not using these services.
Also, I would be curious about what this change means to services like nitter.net which offer a custom web interface for Twitter service. Would they be forced to do their reverse engineering without a Twitter account?
If I understand correctly, Twitter users and whoever else who agrees with these ToS surrenders their right to explore how Twitter software works, reverse engineer it, etc. ... "except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits".
While all the other people who are not in any contractual relationship with Twitter are free to do all these things.
It is interesting to see that people who use services like Twitter actually have _less_ rights in some areas than other people who are not using these services.
Also, I would be curious about what this change means to services like nitter.net which offer a custom web interface for Twitter service. Would they be forced to do their reverse engineering without a Twitter account?
I thought often the clause is "by accessing x content you are agreeing to our terms of service"? I may be wrong, but I can't figure out a a way that you could reverse engineer twitter's software without someone breaking that ToS.
As long as Twitter's API is publicly accessible, I cannot imagine how making an HTTP request to it would constitute an implicit agreement to any ToS.
"By accessing or using our APIs, you are agreeing to the terms below." <- https://developers.google.com/terms
"By accessing or using Microsoft APIs, including within a software application, website, tool, service, or product you create or offer to Customers (your "Application"), you are agreeing to these terms and to comply with any accompanying documentation that applies to your use of the Microsoft APIs ("API Terms") with Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft", "we", "us", or "our"). You represent and warrant to us that you have the authority to accept these API Terms on behalf of yourself, a company, and/or other entity, as applicable." <- https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/microsoft-apis/terms-...
Again, I'm not a lawyer so this could be unenforceable, but I have to assume everyone does it because it's at least somehow useful.
"By accessing or using Microsoft APIs, including within a software application, website, tool, service, or product you create or offer to Customers (your "Application"), you are agreeing to these terms and to comply with any accompanying documentation that applies to your use of the Microsoft APIs ("API Terms") with Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft", "we", "us", or "our"). You represent and warrant to us that you have the authority to accept these API Terms on behalf of yourself, a company, and/or other entity, as applicable." <- https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/microsoft-apis/terms-...
Again, I'm not a lawyer so this could be unenforceable, but I have to assume everyone does it because it's at least somehow useful.
I am also not a lawyer. But it seems to me that public usage of any publicly accessible resource can only be restricted by law.
Regardless of what some ToS say, they can only apply to the people who explicitly agree to them. It would not make any sense, in my opinion, to assume that such an agreement is implicitly given by merely using the resource.
Consider, for example, a situation when someone places a bench into a public park for public use. The conditions under which this bench can be used are defined by law in a sense that, as a property it should not be damaged, stolen, etc. But nothing more.
The owner of this bench might create a ToS in which they might state almost anything. For instance, they might have a clause saying that by sitting on this bench you agree to donate $10 to their cause.
But if a person sits on this bench and does not donate, they did not break any law. They merely did not agree to the ToS of this bench and used it, in accordance to all applicable law, as any other publicly accessible bench.
Regardless of what some ToS say, they can only apply to the people who explicitly agree to them. It would not make any sense, in my opinion, to assume that such an agreement is implicitly given by merely using the resource.
Consider, for example, a situation when someone places a bench into a public park for public use. The conditions under which this bench can be used are defined by law in a sense that, as a property it should not be damaged, stolen, etc. But nothing more.
The owner of this bench might create a ToS in which they might state almost anything. For instance, they might have a clause saying that by sitting on this bench you agree to donate $10 to their cause.
But if a person sits on this bench and does not donate, they did not break any law. They merely did not agree to the ToS of this bench and used it, in accordance to all applicable law, as any other publicly accessible bench.
While the internet may feel like a public park, when you access twitter's API you are connecting to their servers, which are not owned by the state. They are owned by a private entity.
Private entities can make whatever rules they want for their property as long as those rules don't break laws.
Twitter says don't reverse engineer. You reverse engineer. They block you. They can do that. If you actually break a law and cause damages with your reverse engineering, they can consider suing you. They can do that too.
If you are ignorant to the terms in which someone is offering a service to you then you are only exposing yourself to unneeded risk.
Private entities can make whatever rules they want for their property as long as those rules don't break laws.
Twitter says don't reverse engineer. You reverse engineer. They block you. They can do that. If you actually break a law and cause damages with your reverse engineering, they can consider suing you. They can do that too.
If you are ignorant to the terms in which someone is offering a service to you then you are only exposing yourself to unneeded risk.
> Private entities can make whatever rules they want for their property as long as those rules don't break laws.
Yes. At the same time, people can use whatever publicly accessible resource in any way they like, as long as they do not break any laws.
The crucial point here is that the object of this discussion is a publicly accessible API. That, by design, comes with some elementary rights which cannot possibly be revoked by the fact that the API's provider puts something into their ToS. One of such rights is the right to use these APIs.
When someone uses these publicly accessible APIs and based on their experience then makes logical reasoning and conclusions about how they work, it might be considered as reverse engineering. But I cannot imagine how could a thought process be legally forbidden by any ToS in any way.
When someone then publishes their findings about the functionality of this public API, they are merely publishing the results of their reasoning based on facts that are publicly available. It is in essence a research result based on publicly accessible input data. Again, I cannot imagine how could such an activity be legally forbidden by the existence of some ToS.
> terms in which someone is offering a service to you
This service is offered as a publicly accessible API in the first place. The fact that someone might enter into a contractual relationship with the API's provider and therefore have their rights restricted is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.
Its main topic is the usage of this publicly accessible API without any contractual agreement.
If someone claims that a mere usage of some publicly accessible resource immediately constitutes entering into some contractual agreement, such provisions need to be supported by the law. And I am unaware of any legal obligations to agree with the publicly accessible API provider's ToS before using the API.
The API provider can put almost whatever they want into their ToS. The important part is whether or not it is backed by the law.
Yes. At the same time, people can use whatever publicly accessible resource in any way they like, as long as they do not break any laws.
The crucial point here is that the object of this discussion is a publicly accessible API. That, by design, comes with some elementary rights which cannot possibly be revoked by the fact that the API's provider puts something into their ToS. One of such rights is the right to use these APIs.
When someone uses these publicly accessible APIs and based on their experience then makes logical reasoning and conclusions about how they work, it might be considered as reverse engineering. But I cannot imagine how could a thought process be legally forbidden by any ToS in any way.
When someone then publishes their findings about the functionality of this public API, they are merely publishing the results of their reasoning based on facts that are publicly available. It is in essence a research result based on publicly accessible input data. Again, I cannot imagine how could such an activity be legally forbidden by the existence of some ToS.
> terms in which someone is offering a service to you
This service is offered as a publicly accessible API in the first place. The fact that someone might enter into a contractual relationship with the API's provider and therefore have their rights restricted is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.
Its main topic is the usage of this publicly accessible API without any contractual agreement.
If someone claims that a mere usage of some publicly accessible resource immediately constitutes entering into some contractual agreement, such provisions need to be supported by the law. And I am unaware of any legal obligations to agree with the publicly accessible API provider's ToS before using the API.
The API provider can put almost whatever they want into their ToS. The important part is whether or not it is backed by the law.
If you scroll further down, they just moved those bits around.
The main difference seems to be a name change from Twitter International “Company” to “Unlimited”, and removed references to super hearts and some other feature I’ve never used or had an interest in.
The main difference seems to be a name change from Twitter International “Company” to “Unlimited”, and removed references to super hearts and some other feature I’ve never used or had an interest in.
I wonder what does this exactly mean. Does this mean that you are not allowed to figure out how some feature exactly work or is it just to forbid you from trying to manipulate algorithms (and exploit them)?
Doesn't mean anything, just someone filling in the hours, it'd be faster and more effective to build from scratch, anyone who could reverse Twitter already knows how to make a better clone. The bigger a company gets the more they hire people who work on pretend problems like this.
Or banning things like Nitter which bypasses the technical limitation of Twitter's UI being dogshit?
If I was in court over that, I'd argue the UI being dogshit is because of the management of the product teams, not because of the engineering department/technical limitations/technical merit (or lack of thereof).
That would be in line with Musk/Tesla's whimsical protectiveness of Tesla software. I expect more free speech on Twitter but draconian lockdowns of the IP/API's, push for real names and ramped up data mining of the human cattle.
They are probably trying to stop people from blocking adverts or in my case removing the annoying popup that wants you to login when you use a vpn.
I know of one case of Twitter doing client side validation [1]. Maybe there are more?
1 - https://github.com/qntm/base2048#note
1 - https://github.com/qntm/base2048#note
[deleted]
>You agree that you will not work around any technical limitations in the software provided to you as part of the Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits.
Translation from legalese: we will likely throttle the free accounts in some possibly bypassable way, and will ban you if you try to work around it instead of switching to a paid account.
Translation from legalese: we will likely throttle the free accounts in some possibly bypassable way, and will ban you if you try to work around it instead of switching to a paid account.
So, ignoring for the moment the actual substance of the post, I just want to mention that this is a cool use of diffchecker, which I have not seen before.
On related note - I wish we had a diff view of all the laws/bills that get passed: showing who contributed what language.
I've wanted git blame for laws for years, but I suspect what would end up happening is one scapegoat would be selected for each bill to make all the changes, so it would just be that one person on each bill and it wouldn't really tell us who made a change or why.
It would be political, for sure, but it still might be informative to see who claims credit for which part.
You should check out Klaxon: https://github.com/themarshallproject/klaxon
That way you can setup all the sites you want to keep an eye on.
That is a nice tool !!!!.
I use diffchecker.com almost daily for debugging outputs. Great simple UI
On windows, Notepad++ worked amazingly well when I was doing a lot of debugging of server logs at my old job.
My only disdain for it is that it's online and stores the content of the diff. I'm a big fan of webapps that store input data in the URL instead, although storing the content encrypted with the url hash being the encryption key (like Firefox Send) would also be better.
On the tool side: there must be some services that do web scrapping and diffing periodically. Of course with additional filtering like diff only content from specified selector, ignore this, ignore that. Can someone recommend anything like that? Bonus points if it's just a thing one can run locally.
Not 100% what you’re asking for but git scraping is a pretty cool technique. The idea is you set up a bot to scrape the data and commit to a git repository periodically. This can be done completely for free with no maintenance using GitHub Actions, for example.
https://simonwillison.net/2020/Oct/9/git-scraping/
https://simonwillison.net/2020/Oct/9/git-scraping/
It’s a hosted service, but Wachete has been watching some pages for me for years. For local, with more control, try scripting Selenium or Phantomjs with Python.
I've had an idea written down for a while about how it would be cool to have a tool like this but as a browser extension. It would show you exactly what on the page has been changed and also notify you when changes occur to pages or articles you "subscribe" to.
The idea would be that you can "subscribe" to news articles that are often updated, redacted, changed etc. with information that completely changes the entire story. Think about a major national event where the first reports were completely wrong, it's updated 3 days later with correct information, but the public still primarily believes the first version of the story.
Anyways, figured I'd share this idea (since ideas are worth $0 without execution). Hoping diffchecker or someone else could tackle a project like this!
The idea would be that you can "subscribe" to news articles that are often updated, redacted, changed etc. with information that completely changes the entire story. Think about a major national event where the first reports were completely wrong, it's updated 3 days later with correct information, but the public still primarily believes the first version of the story.
Anyways, figured I'd share this idea (since ideas are worth $0 without execution). Hoping diffchecker or someone else could tackle a project like this!
Cool idea actually - I like this - in the age of online "print" media it is just so easy to change the text.
Oh, I guess I cannot do stuff like this anymore:
https://soatok.blog/2020/04/27/why-server-side-input-validat...
https://soatok.blog/2020/04/27/why-server-side-input-validat...
I do not understand why the most services doesn't do diffs by them self.
My bank for example has an "show diff" button if they change anything. This saves me time and build up trust because I know they try not to hide anything.
My bank for example has an "show diff" button if they change anything. This saves me time and build up trust because I know they try not to hide anything.
> I do not understand why the most services doesn't do diffs by them self.
Because they don't want you to notice the changes.
Because they don't want you to notice the changes.
Or because there are like 3 people total who care, and it's not worth building the feature.
Not everything is evil.
Not everything is evil.
A little of column A, a little of column B.
I see an awful lot of mention of periscope being removed. Is that related to the current firing of kayv
Many people get more attention from diffchecker than New Twitter TOS
why do these become effective on June 10th and not immediately when this was published?
new product/features on June 10th? ownership transfer finalized?
new product/features on June 10th? ownership transfer finalized?
There are often regulations requiring you give users notice before making these changes. So beginning yesterday would provide 30 days notice (1 full month) allowing people time to react, respond, etc.
This is how TOS should be updated!
There is absolutely nothing interesting in this diff that I can see?
Seems the following part was added:
> You agree that you will not work around any technical limitations in the software provided to you as part of the Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits.
That seems relevant to various groups who calls themselves "hackers" :)
> You agree that you will not work around any technical limitations in the software provided to you as part of the Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits.
That seems relevant to various groups who calls themselves "hackers" :)
So I am guessing the days of using front-ends like Nitter are limited?
I thought Musk would lean more towards an open platform and maybe would even support ActivityPub for Twitter (I can get pretty optimistic lol) but I guess that's not going to happen.
I thought Musk would lean more towards an open platform and maybe would even support ActivityPub for Twitter (I can get pretty optimistic lol) but I guess that's not going to happen.
Musk does not own Twitter yet, and won’t for months.
It can also mean they aim to enforce their own new API, on which they are working for some time now. Making some juicy money is always a good motivation for changes.
The only thing I got from this is that Twitter is an Irish company.
Yeah, pretty clickbait article. (Because obv. people assume it is something to do with content policy since Musk bought it)
There is no article, and it's also not clickbait since there are in fact new ToS. The assumptions that you imply say more about you than about other people.
Interesting dark UI pattern on that website.
Video: https://twitter.com/simevidas/status/1524735892841275392
Video: https://twitter.com/simevidas/status/1524735892841275392
The term 'dark pattern' wrt to UX is meant to signal that the practice is morally dubious. In an app with a 'dark pattern', the designer uses affordances in the UI to nudge the user into taking action against their best interest (in favor of the company/product).
In this case this was just shitty handling of the zoom or something app-browser related - it doesn't seem to be trying to trick you into anything.
In this case this was just shitty handling of the zoom or something app-browser related - it doesn't seem to be trying to trick you into anything.
That’s not a dark UI pattern, that’s just a poorly made modal window
You can click around the popup and it closes it. So does pressing escape.
What is this "escape" of which you speak? Do I activate that by shaking my phone?
The popup is not present on mobile.
My window is big enough to see the whole modal, however it didn't show the bottom link, but when I opened it in a private window it did, but then when I closed and reopened my private browser it did not show again.
It's worse than a dark pattern, they are A/B testing a dark pattern.
It's worse than a dark pattern, they are A/B testing a dark pattern.
The text of the website overflows outside the screen on mobile, and the main menu is split into two lines, which disturbs the design.
I doubt very much that this is intentional. The explanation that this is a bug on a site intended for desktop users with large screens is much more likely in my eyes, as it would be consistent with their other layout issues.
When I use my tiny MacBook Air, I simply resize websites to 75%, otherwise most of them have layout problems.
I doubt very much that this is intentional. The explanation that this is a bug on a site intended for desktop users with large screens is much more likely in my eyes, as it would be consistent with their other layout issues.
When I use my tiny MacBook Air, I simply resize websites to 75%, otherwise most of them have layout problems.
except my screen size is large and I can see the entire modal. Yes, there may be a screen size concern too, however the absence of the link at the bottom exists for some no matter the screen size.
You should be given the choice to be grandfathered into the version of TOS upon first using that service.
I think with social media where value is derived by ongoing time investment of users, the TOS changes should only be applied after mutual agreement.
When I invest hours into helping to flourish a community, I need to be assured the company holds their side of the contract and not change the terms at any arbitrary time.
I disagree with the notion that you can stop using it, if you don’t agree with the new TOS.
social media is different than let’s say visiting Politico, where I’m just a consumer and not a contributor. Politico doesn’t owe me anything.
When you start contributing and building value under an initial sets of policy and agreements that initial agreement should remain in place until mutually agreed to change it.
I understand that causes some operational headaches, but it’s just cost of running a social media company.