Twitter Terms of Service Diff
diffchecker.com
diffchecker.com
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.
Sounds horrifying from a UX and design standpoint.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
Stop working for free.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
Realistically most sites want to exploit people like you.
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.
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.
[1] https://futurism.com/starlink-terms-of-service-demands-users-recognise-mars-free-planet/ampYou 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.
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.
https://www.howtogeek.com/735152/how-to-turn-off-the-sign-in...
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
But if I was thinking about buying something from them as a company, I would take that line very seriously.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
(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)
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 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.
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.
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!
https://soatok.blog/2020/04/27/why-server-side-input-validat...
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.
Because they don't want you to notice the changes.
Not everything is evil.
new product/features on June 10th? ownership transfer finalized?
> 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" :)
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.
Video: https://twitter.com/simevidas/status/1524735892841275392
It's worse than a dark pattern, they are A/B testing a dark pattern.
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.
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.