3 ms·

Yeah they severely limit bots and ask for phone numbers and then they 'll ban your number if you use it twice. Who's responsible for that other then the media F

Yeah they severely limit bots and ask for phone numbers and then they 'll ban your number if you use it twice. Who's responsible for that other then the media FUD about russian bots? I really can't blame twitter (and FB) for limiting their platforms here.

bilbo0s 7y ago
Hmm. That's actually a good question. Does it outline in this legislation who is responsible if twitter throws open their api's and the company that a user delegated steals the user's data by acting, essentially, as a proxy api for other companies? I would think it's obvious that from the moment you delegate access to your data, Twitter would no longer be responsible. Basically, they should only be responsible for making sure that data is given only to whoever authenticates with the appropriate keys that the user in question authorized. What happens from there should be no longer Twitter's legal problem. That seems obvious to me, but it's definitely something you would have to check.
- buboard 7y ago
  Thhis isnt even about theft, but that people give their permission willy nilly to bad actors. Thats not a solvable problem
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    >Thats not a solvable problem Well, we're not trying to "solve" the problem. We're just trying to clarify that Twitter has no legal liability for the problem. If you delegate access to your account and someone proxies it; or there are all of a sudden all these GDPR violations flooding in because you gave away access to your contacts' private information when you delegated access to your account; etc etc; that liability should fall on either the user, or the entity to which the user delegated access. It shouldn't really fall on Twitter. That's all we're talking about here, just making sure that legal and criminal liability is matched with delegated authorization. Because the legal ramifications are what tend to ensure security and privacy.
    - buboard 7y ago
      That’s what platforms already do - yet they are being slandered for not saving their users from themselves.
      - bilbo0s 7y ago
        First, I doubt many people knowingly allowed Cambridge Analytica access to their data. Second, slandering is not the same as legal liability. If people are slandering you, sue them. But people can't sue you and say FB gave some company access to my data unless FB actually does that without the user's knowledge. Lastly, under this new system, no one would be saying that FB is legally liable for a user explicitly granting access to a third party. Vast majority of people would lay the blame for that at the foot of the idiot user. Again, we're just trying to verify that the legislation reflects that very common sense view.
duxup 7y ago
I think their API restrictions really started earlier as an effort to push users to their official app. Granted your points are still very valid / a concern.
- buboard 7y ago
  Maybe but i noticed them becoming really unworkable since 2016.

bilbo0s 7y ago

Hmm. That's actually a good question. Does it outline in this legislation who is responsible if twitter throws open their api's and the company that a user delegated steals the user's data by acting, essentially, as a proxy api for other companies? I would think it's obvious that from the moment you delegate access to your data, Twitter would no longer be responsible. Basically, they should only be responsible for making sure that data is given only to whoever authenticates with the appropriate keys that the user in question authorized. What happens from there should be no longer Twitter's legal problem. That seems obvious to me, but it's definitely something you would have to check.

buboard 7y ago
Thhis isnt even about theft, but that people give their permission willy nilly to bad actors. Thats not a solvable problem
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >Thats not a solvable problem Well, we're not trying to "solve" the problem. We're just trying to clarify that Twitter has no legal liability for the problem. If you delegate access to your account and someone proxies it; or there are all of a sudden all these GDPR violations flooding in because you gave away access to your contacts' private information when you delegated access to your account; etc etc; that liability should fall on either the user, or the entity to which the user delegated access. It shouldn't really fall on Twitter. That's all we're talking about here, just making sure that legal and criminal liability is matched with delegated authorization. Because the legal ramifications are what tend to ensure security and privacy.
  - buboard 7y ago
    That’s what platforms already do - yet they are being slandered for not saving their users from themselves.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      First, I doubt many people knowingly allowed Cambridge Analytica access to their data. Second, slandering is not the same as legal liability. If people are slandering you, sue them. But people can't sue you and say FB gave some company access to my data unless FB actually does that without the user's knowledge. Lastly, under this new system, no one would be saying that FB is legally liable for a user explicitly granting access to a third party. Vast majority of people would lay the blame for that at the foot of the idiot user. Again, we're just trying to verify that the legislation reflects that very common sense view.

duxup 7y ago

I think their API restrictions really started earlier as an effort to push users to their official app. Granted your points are still very valid / a concern.

buboard 7y ago
Maybe but i noticed them becoming really unworkable since 2016.