I don’t think allowing your competitor to use your own data against you is ‘anti-competitive’
Old Twitter was just not a very well run business.
Old Twitter was just not a very well run business.
For example, most ad-funded websites post content to Twitter, even though Twitter sells ads too. Why? Because tweeting drives additional traffic, which creates a net gain in ad dollars for the site. Despite the seeming direct competition for ad dollars, both Twitter and websites have made more money by working together.
The argument for Twitter client apps is that Twitter needs free content to sell ads against, and many of their most prolific tweeters loved the client apps. Now Twitter will get to see if killing apps reduces tweet content quality or quantity enough to notice.
Counterpoint would be that Twitter grew (partially) due to it's easy to use API. And one could argue that Twitter has a monopoly on short message social media because of this growth. Thus being anti-competitive by suddenly disabling its API.
It's not "[twitter's] own data". Full fucking stop.
It's the data of the users on the platform. In the same way that the texts I send are NOT my carrier's data, and the emails I send are NOT my email provider's data, and mail I send is not the postal service's data. It's mine. They are simply holding it.
The alternative to pulling this data from the api is to simply scrape it from the site. And there are many (very legal) ways to do this. Although they come with some notable downsides (everything from forcing a user to download a browser extension, to having to ask the user for their credentials).
They also carry downsides for twitter - scraping may not be efficient for them.
So the API is the compromise: I can get access the data I could anyways using the automations I'd prefer, but in a manner that allows Twitter to moderate possible downsides for themselves.
Broadly speaking - this is the legal structure twitter (and google, and all sorts of other sites based on user content) operate under. They are not the legal publisher of the information. They may be granted a right to copy and reproduce the information to facilitate the operation of the service, but it's not their info. Period. if it were... they could be in a fuck load of hot water for anything they allow to be posted to the site.
So - while they're under no obligation to build an API... it's a compelling way to improve the user experience, moderate the consequences of scraping, and increase engagement and activity. Because at the end of the day - that information is already available to users.
By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods now known or later developed (for clarity, these rights include, for example, curating, transforming, and translating).
Particularly relevant sections:
> You are responsible for your use of the Services and for any Content you provide, including compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others.
> You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your incorporated audio, photos and videos are considered part of the Content).
Now - to be clear, they are absolutely taking a free license to use your work (copy, alter, redistribute, promote, share with others, etc) as needed to ensure they can... you know, make Twitter work (and advertise for Twitter with it, or expose it to 3rd parties through an api). But the ownership statement is incredibly clear, and meaningfully so.
Full fucking stop.