5 ms·
> Twitter is under no obligation to retain this kind of stuff on your behalf. They declared something worked one way then silently changed how that thing works
by hda2 5y ago
> Twitter is under no obligation to retain this kind of stuff on your behalf.
They declared something worked one way then silently changed how that thing works without properly announcing the change first and giving people enough time to adapt. Would you still be willing to make these excuses if your emails provider decided to do the same thing?
Even if it's their system, there's a limit where people would rightfully start to object.
- bennyp101 5y agoAn email provider (which you most likely pay for - and don't publish on a website) is very different to a social media site (that you don't pay for and want it out in the public) It's a free service that they provide - why can they not change how their system works when they want? People can object whenever they want - but it doesn't change the fact that they don't have any 'rights' to show someone elses content via a 3rd party on their website. Maybe if you paid to embed tweets? Sure ok, they changed the contract - so deal with that. Is it a bit annoying if you use it? Probably. Is it bad that the docs are out of date? Ok. Twitter doesn't have any responsibility to you as someone who wants to quote someone else via their platform.
- nicce 5y agoI would argue that statistically the most people don’t pay for their email provider with money. In that term not a very strong argument.
- bennyp101 5y agoThe "Would you still be willing to make these excuses if your emails provider decided to do the same thing?" statement I was replying to was a bit weak as weak :) But in the case of not paying for your email, then that is also on you to acknowledge there is a set of terms, and you can adhere or not. I certainly wouldn't expect a free service to owe me anything.
- simonw 5y agoIf I embed your JavaScript on my page I am giving you a HUGE amount of my trust. You should treat that as sacred.
- montroser 5y agoBut why would you trust a corporation that owes you nothing?
- folkrav 5y agoThere's always some level of implicit trust the second you decide to use any platform.
- bennyp101 5y agoSure, and you would have done a risk assessment based on that. I'm not sure why I (as a 3rd party social media platform) would treat your trust as sacred?
- fphhotchips 5y agoI disagree. Twitter doesn't own that content. Someone posting the Twitter JS on their website to allow Twitter to format the tweet to Twitter's brand standards and allow a link to drive traffic back to Twitter is a favour that they're doing Twitter. They should respect that favour by not changing the contract unilaterally.
- LadyCailin 5y agoBut, you as the website operator don’t own that content either? Certainly I have some level of expectation that if I delete something, it may very well actually be gone, right? And further, that Twitter taking steps to do exactly that in places they control is reasonable?
- fphhotchips 5y ago> Certainly I have some level of expectation that if I delete something, it may very well actually be gone, right? Really? For me this is like saying that just because you stop actively publishing a book, people can never quote it again. That's clearly not true, right? Edit: or because I didn't distribute recordings of a speech I made, newspapers can't quote me
- LadyCailin 5y agoBut I am not, nor do I aspire to be, a public figure. For notable people, and most certainly politicians, I might tend to agree with you, but not for the general case.
- fphhotchips 5y agoPeople who aren't public figures get quoted in print all the time. The only way to not be quoted is to never say anything.
- montroser 5y agoUnfortunately, it doesn't really matter if you disagree. They own the platform, and they can operate it how they please. There's no "changing of the contract" here. Their TOS certainly don't guarantee anything at all in exchange for website owners embedding tweets in this way. Any theoretical moral argument is kind of irrelevant.
- renewiltord 5y agoRight. And I don’t have a responsibility to not kick up a fuss. So I’m going to kick up a fuss and hopefully people will want to use their APIs and SDKs a teensy bit less.
- eddieroger 5y agoIf my email provider started doing something I don't like, shame on me for not saving a copy of my mail. Unless I'm explicitly paying them to keep a copy, which I'm pretty sure nobody using Twitter is doing, then they get to set the rules. And if I don't like the rules, I don't have to use the system, just like I wouldn't use a mail provider that deleted my mail without my action.