6 ms·

If anyone is interested in how to buy public Twitter data, here are the available APIs: http://support.gnip.com/apis/ http://support.gnip.com/apis/ https://de

If anyone is interested in how to buy public Twitter data, here are the available APIs: http://support.gnip.com/apis/ http://support.gnip.com/apis/ https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/tweets/batch-historical/overview https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/tweets/batch-historica... (new doc for Gnip API) https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/tweets/search/overview/enterprise https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/tweets/search/overview... (new doc for Gnip API)

stingraycharles 8y ago
Yes I’m surprised all this is shocking people. Guess people knew about this, but only now are suddenly realising the implications ?
- superkuh 8y ago
  https://xkcd.com/743/ https://xkcd.com/743/
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  Facebook's public response destroyed every social media company's presumption of good faith. > “In 2015, GSR did have one-time API access to a random sample of public tweets from a five-month period from December 2014 to April 2015,” Twitter said in a statement to Bloomberg. “Based on the recent reports, we conducted our own internal review and did not find any access to private data about people who use Twitter.” Facebook kept changing their message regarding the affected accounts, from nothing to 87M and now possibly way more. There's a possibility that Twitter might have sold DM information as well. Under any other circumstance they would have some presumption of good faith, but given what happened with Facebook there's a good chance we will hear more.
  - detaro 8y ago
    > There's a possibility that Twitter might have sold DM information as well. Do you have any specific reason to mention that or are we just listing all data they have?
    - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
      Everyone is in agreement that public tweets are public. Twitter also has Direct Messages [1], which they represent as private: > Direct Messages are the private side of Twitter. You can use Direct Messages to have private conversations with people about Tweets and other content. I think @stingraycharles was surprised by the response because the discussion surrounded publicly accessible information. The poster might not have realized that Twitter had information that is reasonably considered "private" as well. If DM information (metadata or raw messages) were made available, that would be surprising to millions of Twitter users. And I think we will see more scrutiny of Twitter and other companies in the coming months regarding the use of "private" information. Unless, of course, you believe that SV and tech companies are not to be trusted in the first place, in which case none of this would be surprising or shocking. [1] https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/direct-messages https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/direct-messages
  - downandout 8y ago
    There's a possibility that Twitter might have sold DM information as well. No, there’s not. They don’t sell DMs.
    - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
      I don’t know, and can’t know. So, if you don’t mind me asking, how do you know for sure?
      - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
        Twitter said they didn't, therefore it must be true /s
        stochastic_monk 8y ago
        There’s also a difference between selling DMs and DM information. Edit: For clarification, it matters if whom you contacted is shared even if the content is not.
        koolba 8y ago
        Or if they did only who you messaged and when. Not the text of the message, just “metadata”.
        sudouser 8y ago
        ...like someone important messaged Stormy Daniels...
      - downandout 8y ago
        Because they don’t offer DMs or DM metadata for sale. This Kogan guy had no special connections at Twitter or even Facebook for that matter. He was an independent developer using off the shelf offerings of Twitter and Facebook to get what he was after. If DMs aren’t for sale (they’re not) then he didn’t get them.
  - nl 8y ago
    They don’t sell DMs. Source: I had a GNIP account.
- gutnor 8y ago
  And, that folk, is how regulations are born, when companies abuse the people. In a few decades, "future HN"-reader will talk about how those regulation are stifling innovation by rising the bar of entry to any business managing user data, leaving the big players with an unfair advantage. Surely the world would be a better place if information was free to share ?
  - Florin_Andrei 8y ago
    The Circle of Life.
  - ASalazarMX 8y ago
    Waiting for someone to advocate free markets and how the markets regulate themselves. Any time now.
- smsm42 8y ago
  I'm not sure what un-obvious implications are there? That if you write something on the Internet in public service, people could read it? Isn't that the whole point of publishing it?
  - stingraycharles 8y ago
    I think the implication is that people are fine when it’s used for advertising, but political campaigns is a whole different ballpark. As far as I understand, this is what makes the CA case different.
    - smsm42 8y ago
      People not only were OK when Obama campaign used social networking data - they actively cheered it, including on HN and tech press, as a new and smart way to reach people. I remember reading a number of articles lauding them for it myself. Now a mundane activity of getting access to searchable public data is presented as some dark conspiracy. I personally can't see any logic why political ads would be different than coffee machine ads - both try to convince me to do something. It's just there's no organized movement united by hate of coffee machines, so nobody makes a fuss about coffee machine ads.
smsm42 8y ago
Wait so Twitter allows corporations to access and search public tweets, which are published by people so that they can be seen publicly? Oh the humanity! Next thing we'll learn some company is indexing public websites and allows people to search in those too!
- powerapple 8y ago
  And yet Facebook leaks are also public profiles on Facebook, but yeah, it is Mark Zuckerberg, a filthy rich guy
  - smsm42 8y ago
    Not sure how Zuckerberg being rich matters, but at least in FB case one could argue that social graph data - i.e. list of friends - can be considered at least somewhat private (not sure about FB settings but looks plausible). Content of public posts is definitely not private without any doubt.

stingraycharles 8y ago

Yes I’m surprised all this is shocking people. Guess people knew about this, but only now are suddenly realising the implications ?

superkuh 8y ago
https://xkcd.com/743/ https://xkcd.com/743/
TAForObvReasons 8y ago
Facebook's public response destroyed every social media company's presumption of good faith. > “In 2015, GSR did have one-time API access to a random sample of public tweets from a five-month period from December 2014 to April 2015,” Twitter said in a statement to Bloomberg. “Based on the recent reports, we conducted our own internal review and did not find any access to private data about people who use Twitter.” Facebook kept changing their message regarding the affected accounts, from nothing to 87M and now possibly way more. There's a possibility that Twitter might have sold DM information as well. Under any other circumstance they would have some presumption of good faith, but given what happened with Facebook there's a good chance we will hear more.
- detaro 8y ago
  > There's a possibility that Twitter might have sold DM information as well. Do you have any specific reason to mention that or are we just listing all data they have?
  - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
    Everyone is in agreement that public tweets are public. Twitter also has Direct Messages [1], which they represent as private: > Direct Messages are the private side of Twitter. You can use Direct Messages to have private conversations with people about Tweets and other content. I think @stingraycharles was surprised by the response because the discussion surrounded publicly accessible information. The poster might not have realized that Twitter had information that is reasonably considered "private" as well. If DM information (metadata or raw messages) were made available, that would be surprising to millions of Twitter users. And I think we will see more scrutiny of Twitter and other companies in the coming months regarding the use of "private" information. Unless, of course, you believe that SV and tech companies are not to be trusted in the first place, in which case none of this would be surprising or shocking. [1] https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/direct-messages https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/direct-messages
- downandout 8y ago
  There's a possibility that Twitter might have sold DM information as well. No, there’s not. They don’t sell DMs.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    I don’t know, and can’t know. So, if you don’t mind me asking, how do you know for sure?
    - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
      Twitter said they didn't, therefore it must be true /s
      - stochastic_monk 8y ago
        There’s also a difference between selling DMs and DM information. Edit: For clarification, it matters if whom you contacted is shared even if the content is not.
      - koolba 8y ago
        Or if they did only who you messaged and when. Not the text of the message, just “metadata”.
        sudouser 8y ago
        ...like someone important messaged Stormy Daniels...
    - downandout 8y ago
      Because they don’t offer DMs or DM metadata for sale. This Kogan guy had no special connections at Twitter or even Facebook for that matter. He was an independent developer using off the shelf offerings of Twitter and Facebook to get what he was after. If DMs aren’t for sale (they’re not) then he didn’t get them.
- nl 8y ago
  They don’t sell DMs. Source: I had a GNIP account.
gutnor 8y ago
And, that folk, is how regulations are born, when companies abuse the people. In a few decades, "future HN"-reader will talk about how those regulation are stifling innovation by rising the bar of entry to any business managing user data, leaving the big players with an unfair advantage. Surely the world would be a better place if information was free to share ?
- Florin_Andrei 8y ago
  The Circle of Life.
- ASalazarMX 8y ago
  Waiting for someone to advocate free markets and how the markets regulate themselves. Any time now.
smsm42 8y ago
I'm not sure what un-obvious implications are there? That if you write something on the Internet in public service, people could read it? Isn't that the whole point of publishing it?
- stingraycharles 8y ago
  I think the implication is that people are fine when it’s used for advertising, but political campaigns is a whole different ballpark. As far as I understand, this is what makes the CA case different.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    People not only were OK when Obama campaign used social networking data - they actively cheered it, including on HN and tech press, as a new and smart way to reach people. I remember reading a number of articles lauding them for it myself. Now a mundane activity of getting access to searchable public data is presented as some dark conspiracy. I personally can't see any logic why political ads would be different than coffee machine ads - both try to convince me to do something. It's just there's no organized movement united by hate of coffee machines, so nobody makes a fuss about coffee machine ads.

smsm42 8y ago

Wait so Twitter allows corporations to access and search public tweets, which are published by people so that they can be seen publicly? Oh the humanity! Next thing we'll learn some company is indexing public websites and allows people to search in those too!

powerapple 8y ago
And yet Facebook leaks are also public profiles on Facebook, but yeah, it is Mark Zuckerberg, a filthy rich guy
- smsm42 8y ago
  Not sure how Zuckerberg being rich matters, but at least in FB case one could argue that social graph data - i.e. list of friends - can be considered at least somewhat private (not sure about FB settings but looks plausible). Content of public posts is definitely not private without any doubt.