5 ms·

I think this perspective misses the major issue being criticised here and that is the fact that the thread compiler apps that compile threads without the author

• yorwba 8y ago
  You don't just give Twitter consent to display your words on their website. You grant [them] 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). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. https://twitter.com/en/tos https://twitter.com/en/tos Emphasis mine. The permission you give Twitter also extends to thread compiler apps, to whatever extent Twitter feels like sublicensing.
  • raverbashing 8y ago
    Yeah the grant is liberal because someone would complain that, I don't know, twitter used a CDN or allows it to be displayed on 3rd party apps or or some other minor nitpicky complaint. But yes, if you're writing on twitter, you are giving them permission to use your content.
  • est31 8y ago
    > The permission you give Twitter also extends to thread compiler apps, to whatever extent Twitter feels like sublicensing. But does Twitter sublicense? Why would they want to support usage of a third party service?
    • icebraining 8y ago
      Twitter does sublicense, otherwise it would be impossible to use their API. I've looked at the developer agreement, and didn't see anything that would make these services against the rules.