6 ms·

Why doesn't PostGhost just record tweets using the browser? I'm sure it can be done without much problem. This is blatant abuse by Twitter. Public tweets are pu

Why doesn't PostGhost just record tweets using the browser? I'm sure it can be done without much problem. This is blatant abuse by Twitter. Public tweets are public, and the readers should be able to record/screenshot/save them, without Twitter having a say in the matter. If they don't allow using the API for that, use the browser directly.

jonknee 10y ago
Copyright issues don't go away if you capture via browser.
- homero 10y ago
  Then do it anonymously
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  Copyright belongs to the person tweeting, not to Twitter (they just get a license from the person tweeting). And fair use specifically mentions "criticism, comment, news reporting, [...] scholarship, or research", several of which apply to reporting on deleted tweets from prominent public figures. This isn't a copyright issue at all; it's exclusively a ToS issue. Twitter can choose to prevent someone from using their API. They'd have a harder time forcing the takedown of the existing content.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    Yes, and what do you think of the person who deleted a tweet will say about you using their copyright? I would argue it is a copyright issue because by deleting content a user is saying they don't want anyone to access it. Why would Twitter then want to turn around and allow access to it through an API? As a user I think this is the right tack to take. There is no possible advantage for Twitter to have sites that make the delete feature not really work.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      > Why would Twitter then want to turn around and allow access to it through an API? Then? No, this is about getting it through the API while it's still up.
      - jonknee 10y ago
        Obviously, but with the restriction you also delete it when it's no longer in the API. It would be ridiculous if Twitter helped developers to embarrass/blackmail their users.
        cyphar 10y ago
        If it is stored for purposes of commentary or news reporting, then it would fall under fair use and neither Twitter nor the original author have any power to stop you from republishing the tweets as long as it is considered fair use.
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        You can't undo saying something to a hundred thousand people. You can demand everyone forget, but it won't work.
        edoceo 10y ago
        Big Brother, 1984
    - roywiggins 10y ago
      When someone's an verified user, they're a public figure and have an outsize impact on the Twitter discourse (they tend to have a lot of followers). The things they say are inherently newsworthy. If the archiving is done for the purpose of scholarship or commentary it sounds like a compelling argument for it being fair use.
      - thwarted 10y ago
        I think that one of the things that an account should have to trade in for being a Verified Account is the ability to delete tweets. Being a public figure and having the notoriety that is implicit in having a Verified Account, the account should have to stand by what it tweets, or at least not be able to modify the public record and break references to its content.
  - simbalion 10y ago
    It's a 1st amendment issue. If someone says something in a public forum what they said becomes public domain.
niftich 10y ago
Using a 'browser' from their base-of-operations in an automated manner would fit the definition of scraping, which is not allowed by Twitter's TOS.
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  What are they going to do if they break the TOS? It's not like the developer agreement where they'll shut down your API key - the best they can do is try and blacklist your IP Address
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    Sue?
    - bnj 10y ago
      Scrape using an IP address registered to a corporate body located in an unfriendly jurisdiction.
      - drdaeman 10y ago
        Twitter will just block it. Scraping should be done from multiple random addresses from the networks all around the globe, at random intervals. I guess, the only case is voluntary botnet, where users sympathetic to the cause would run limited (so, not prone to abuse) proxies. (To avoid users messing with tweets, just proxy TCP connections to the mothership and let it verify TLS.) However, this would hinder the service, as with the polling model it may not always notice all the tweets.
        joshmn 10y ago
        luminati.io Zing.
        dottedmag 10y ago
        Luminati shut downs the accounts if the owners of the scrapped websites complain about it.
telecomix 10y ago
'This is on your permanent record' Something like http://tweet2cite.com/ http://tweet2cite.com/ is very handy in these cases. If there ever is going to be a Twitter v2 it should be block-chain powered and thus impossible to rewrite history. Blockchain is going to disallow Orwell's 1984 from happening.

jonknee 10y ago

homero 10y ago
Then do it anonymously
JoshTriplett 10y ago
Copyright belongs to the person tweeting, not to Twitter (they just get a license from the person tweeting). And fair use specifically mentions "criticism, comment, news reporting, [...] scholarship, or research", several of which apply to reporting on deleted tweets from prominent public figures. This isn't a copyright issue at all; it's exclusively a ToS issue. Twitter can choose to prevent someone from using their API. They'd have a harder time forcing the takedown of the existing content.
- jonknee 10y ago
  Yes, and what do you think of the person who deleted a tweet will say about you using their copyright? I would argue it is a copyright issue because by deleting content a user is saying they don't want anyone to access it. Why would Twitter then want to turn around and allow access to it through an API? As a user I think this is the right tack to take. There is no possible advantage for Twitter to have sites that make the delete feature not really work.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    > Why would Twitter then want to turn around and allow access to it through an API? Then? No, this is about getting it through the API while it's still up.
    - jonknee 10y ago
      Obviously, but with the restriction you also delete it when it's no longer in the API. It would be ridiculous if Twitter helped developers to embarrass/blackmail their users.
      - cyphar 10y ago
        If it is stored for purposes of commentary or news reporting, then it would fall under fair use and neither Twitter nor the original author have any power to stop you from republishing the tweets as long as it is considered fair use.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        You can't undo saying something to a hundred thousand people. You can demand everyone forget, but it won't work.
        edoceo 10y ago
        Big Brother, 1984
  - roywiggins 10y ago
    When someone's an verified user, they're a public figure and have an outsize impact on the Twitter discourse (they tend to have a lot of followers). The things they say are inherently newsworthy. If the archiving is done for the purpose of scholarship or commentary it sounds like a compelling argument for it being fair use.
    - thwarted 10y ago
      I think that one of the things that an account should have to trade in for being a Verified Account is the ability to delete tweets. Being a public figure and having the notoriety that is implicit in having a Verified Account, the account should have to stand by what it tweets, or at least not be able to modify the public record and break references to its content.
- simbalion 10y ago
  It's a 1st amendment issue. If someone says something in a public forum what they said becomes public domain.

niftich 10y ago

Using a 'browser' from their base-of-operations in an automated manner would fit the definition of scraping, which is not allowed by Twitter's TOS.

madeofpalk 10y ago
What are they going to do if they break the TOS? It's not like the developer agreement where they'll shut down your API key - the best they can do is try and blacklist your IP Address
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Sue?
  - bnj 10y ago
    Scrape using an IP address registered to a corporate body located in an unfriendly jurisdiction.
    - drdaeman 10y ago
      Twitter will just block it. Scraping should be done from multiple random addresses from the networks all around the globe, at random intervals. I guess, the only case is voluntary botnet, where users sympathetic to the cause would run limited (so, not prone to abuse) proxies. (To avoid users messing with tweets, just proxy TCP connections to the mothership and let it verify TLS.) However, this would hinder the service, as with the polling model it may not always notice all the tweets.
      - joshmn 10y ago
        luminati.io Zing.
        dottedmag 10y ago
        Luminati shut downs the accounts if the owners of the scrapped websites complain about it.

telecomix 10y ago

'This is on your permanent record' Something like http://tweet2cite.com/ http://tweet2cite.com/ is very handy in these cases. If there ever is going to be a Twitter v2 it should be block-chain powered and thus impossible to rewrite history. Blockchain is going to disallow Orwell's 1984 from happening.