8 ms·

tl;dr this adds a clause to forbid reserve engineering and bypassing "technical limitations" > You agree that you will not work around any technical limitation

by HHad3 4y ago

tl;dr this adds a clause to forbid reserve engineering and bypassing "technical limitations" > You agree that you will not work around any technical limitations in the software provided to you as part of the Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits.

taubek 4y ago
I wonder what does this exactly mean. Does this mean that you are not allowed to figure out how some feature exactly work or is it just to forbid you from trying to manipulate algorithms (and exploit them)?
- progbits 4y ago
  Or banning things like Nitter which bypasses the technical limitation of Twitter's UI being dogshit?
  - capableweb 4y ago
    If I was in court over that, I'd argue the UI being dogshit is because of the management of the product teams, not because of the engineering department/technical limitations/technical merit (or lack of thereof).
  - zgrealist 4y ago
    That would be in line with Musk/Tesla's whimsical protectiveness of Tesla software. I expect more free speech on Twitter but draconian lockdowns of the IP/API's, push for real names and ramped up data mining of the human cattle.
- jackosdev 4y ago
  Doesn't mean anything, just someone filling in the hours, it'd be faster and more effective to build from scratch, anyone who could reverse Twitter already knows how to make a better clone. The bigger a company gets the more they hire people who work on pretend problems like this.
- dangerface 4y ago
  They are probably trying to stop people from blocking adverts or in my case removing the annoying popup that wants you to login when you use a vpn.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
car_analogy 4y ago
This is equivalent to a newspaper forbidding you from clipping out the articles, or a car manufacturer forbidding you from looking under the hood. It's preposterous that we allow any kind of legitimacy to 'contracts' such as these, that seek to at once control us and keep us ignorant in relation to items and services that fill our homes. But instead of explicitly forbidding such clauses, we're actually writing them into law with anti-circumvention and reverse-engineering (i.e. examining how stuff works) restrictions. It's obscene.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- noir_lord 4y ago
  > It's preposterous that we allow any kind of legitimacy to 'contracts' such as these Big chunk of US GDP depends on IP, that IP is disproportionately in the hands of big corporations, big corporations can legally bribe, sorry lobby US politicians, we get anti-consumer legislation exported world-wide as a result.
- darkerside 4y ago
  The word you are looking for is analogous, not equivalent.
  - car_analogy 4y ago
    No, equivalent. It may relate to a different, more intangible object (website vs. car), but it strips away the same rights.
    - darkerside 4y ago
      In what sense is it equivalent? Legal? Ethical? Moral?
      - car_analogy 4y ago
        Equivalent in the rights it takes away. 'Rights' in a moral, not legal sense - they may not be codified in any law. In the same way one's right to free speech is said to be curtailed, regardless of if their specific legal system recognizes such a right.
pbasista 4y ago
> not work around any technical limitations ... reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software If I understand correctly, Twitter users and whoever else who agrees with these ToS surrenders their right to explore how Twitter software works, reverse engineer it, etc. ... "except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits". While all the other people who are not in any contractual relationship with Twitter are free to do all these things. It is interesting to see that people who use services like Twitter actually have _less_ rights in some areas than other people who are not using these services. Also, I would be curious about what this change means to services like nitter.net which offer a custom web interface for Twitter service. Would they be forced to do their reverse engineering without a Twitter account?
- lbotos 4y ago
  I thought often the clause is "by accessing x content you are agreeing to our terms of service"? I may be wrong, but I can't figure out a a way that you could reverse engineer twitter's software without someone breaking that ToS.
  - pbasista 4y ago
    As long as Twitter's API is publicly accessible, I cannot imagine how making an HTTP request to it would constitute an implicit agreement to any ToS.
    - lbotos 4y ago
      "By accessing or using our APIs, you are agreeing to the terms below." <- https://developers.google.com/terms https://developers.google.com/terms "By accessing or using Microsoft APIs, including within a software application, website, tool, service, or product you create or offer to Customers (your "Application"), you are agreeing to these terms and to comply with any accompanying documentation that applies to your use of the Microsoft APIs ("API Terms") with Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft", "we", "us", or "our"). You represent and warrant to us that you have the authority to accept these API Terms on behalf of yourself, a company, and/or other entity, as applicable." <- https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/microsoft-apis/terms-of-use https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/microsoft-apis/terms-... Again, I'm not a lawyer so this could be unenforceable, but I have to assume everyone does it because it's at least somehow useful.
bbrks 4y ago
Does that vague "bypassing 'technical limitations'" clause also cover tweeting messages more than 250 characters by screenshotting your notes app I wonder?
- coldpie 4y ago
  Obviously not, no.
  - dtx1 4y ago
    What makes it obviously so?
    - jolux 4y ago
      What’s more likely here: that Twitter intends to ban people for posting screenshots of text, or that this clause doesn’t apply to that?
    - coldpie 4y ago
      Simple logic? Twitter is not going to consider posting images of text to be a violation of their TOS. Duh.
      - oauea 4y ago
        Obviously they do. To quote their TOS: > You agree that you will not work around any technical limitations in the software provided to you as part of the Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits. Go to twitter right now and try to post a message containing 300 characters. You can't do it. It is a technical limitation. Now make a screenshot of that text and post it. You just worked around a technical limitation and are now in blatant violation of their TOS.
        coldpie 4y ago
greggsy 4y ago
If you scroll further down, they just moved those bits around. The main difference seems to be a name change from Twitter International “Company” to “Unlimited”, and removed references to super hearts and some other feature I’ve never used or had an interest in.
- Retr0id 4y ago
  I don't see any references to reverse engineering in the previous version.
- ihuman 4y ago
  The super hearts, coins, and stars were part of Periscope
wolf550e 4y ago
I know of one case of Twitter doing client side validation [1]. Maybe there are more? 1 - https://github.com/qntm/base2048#note https://github.com/qntm/base2048#note
jgerrish 4y ago
I wonder if diff is considered a "reverse engineering tool" I wonder if User-Agent "spoofing" is a "work around". That's what they do, you focus on one level, the magicians use misdirection. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out." Slow golf clap. This is not a criticism of Twitter. There are issues with these platforms and different values, but social media gives untold millions a voice, and the alternative is a monopoly.

by HHad3 4y ago

taubek 4y ago

I wonder what does this exactly mean. Does this mean that you are not allowed to figure out how some feature exactly work or is it just to forbid you from trying to manipulate algorithms (and exploit them)?

progbits 4y ago
Or banning things like Nitter which bypasses the technical limitation of Twitter's UI being dogshit?
- capableweb 4y ago
  If I was in court over that, I'd argue the UI being dogshit is because of the management of the product teams, not because of the engineering department/technical limitations/technical merit (or lack of thereof).
- zgrealist 4y ago
  That would be in line with Musk/Tesla's whimsical protectiveness of Tesla software. I expect more free speech on Twitter but draconian lockdowns of the IP/API's, push for real names and ramped up data mining of the human cattle.
jackosdev 4y ago
Doesn't mean anything, just someone filling in the hours, it'd be faster and more effective to build from scratch, anyone who could reverse Twitter already knows how to make a better clone. The bigger a company gets the more they hire people who work on pretend problems like this.
dangerface 4y ago
They are probably trying to stop people from blocking adverts or in my case removing the annoying popup that wants you to login when you use a vpn.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

car_analogy 4y ago

This is equivalent to a newspaper forbidding you from clipping out the articles, or a car manufacturer forbidding you from looking under the hood. It's preposterous that we allow any kind of legitimacy to 'contracts' such as these, that seek to at once control us and keep us ignorant in relation to items and services that fill our homes. But instead of explicitly forbidding such clauses, we're actually writing them into law with anti-circumvention and reverse-engineering (i.e. examining how stuff works) restrictions. It's obscene.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
noir_lord 4y ago
> It's preposterous that we allow any kind of legitimacy to 'contracts' such as these Big chunk of US GDP depends on IP, that IP is disproportionately in the hands of big corporations, big corporations can legally bribe, sorry lobby US politicians, we get anti-consumer legislation exported world-wide as a result.
darkerside 4y ago
The word you are looking for is analogous, not equivalent.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  No, equivalent. It may relate to a different, more intangible object (website vs. car), but it strips away the same rights.
  - darkerside 4y ago
    In what sense is it equivalent? Legal? Ethical? Moral?
    - car_analogy 4y ago
      Equivalent in the rights it takes away. 'Rights' in a moral, not legal sense - they may not be codified in any law. In the same way one's right to free speech is said to be curtailed, regardless of if their specific legal system recognizes such a right.

pbasista 4y ago

> not work around any technical limitations ... reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software If I understand correctly, Twitter users and whoever else who agrees with these ToS surrenders their right to explore how Twitter software works, reverse engineer it, etc. ... "except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits". While all the other people who are not in any contractual relationship with Twitter are free to do all these things. It is interesting to see that people who use services like Twitter actually have _less_ rights in some areas than other people who are not using these services. Also, I would be curious about what this change means to services like nitter.net which offer a custom web interface for Twitter service. Would they be forced to do their reverse engineering without a Twitter account?

lbotos 4y ago
I thought often the clause is "by accessing x content you are agreeing to our terms of service"? I may be wrong, but I can't figure out a a way that you could reverse engineer twitter's software without someone breaking that ToS.
- pbasista 4y ago
  As long as Twitter's API is publicly accessible, I cannot imagine how making an HTTP request to it would constitute an implicit agreement to any ToS.
  - lbotos 4y ago
    "By accessing or using our APIs, you are agreeing to the terms below." <- https://developers.google.com/terms https://developers.google.com/terms "By accessing or using Microsoft APIs, including within a software application, website, tool, service, or product you create or offer to Customers (your "Application"), you are agreeing to these terms and to comply with any accompanying documentation that applies to your use of the Microsoft APIs ("API Terms") with Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft", "we", "us", or "our"). You represent and warrant to us that you have the authority to accept these API Terms on behalf of yourself, a company, and/or other entity, as applicable." <- https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/microsoft-apis/terms-of-use https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/microsoft-apis/terms-... Again, I'm not a lawyer so this could be unenforceable, but I have to assume everyone does it because it's at least somehow useful.

bbrks 4y ago

Does that vague "bypassing 'technical limitations'" clause also cover tweeting messages more than 250 characters by screenshotting your notes app I wonder?

coldpie 4y ago
Obviously not, no.
- dtx1 4y ago
  What makes it obviously so?
  - jolux 4y ago
    What’s more likely here: that Twitter intends to ban people for posting screenshots of text, or that this clause doesn’t apply to that?
  - coldpie 4y ago
    Simple logic? Twitter is not going to consider posting images of text to be a violation of their TOS. Duh.
    - oauea 4y ago
      Obviously they do. To quote their TOS: > You agree that you will not work around any technical limitations in the software provided to you as part of the Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits. Go to twitter right now and try to post a message containing 300 characters. You can't do it. It is a technical limitation. Now make a screenshot of that text and post it. You just worked around a technical limitation and are now in blatant violation of their TOS.
      - coldpie 4y ago

greggsy 4y ago

If you scroll further down, they just moved those bits around. The main difference seems to be a name change from Twitter International “Company” to “Unlimited”, and removed references to super hearts and some other feature I’ve never used or had an interest in.

Retr0id 4y ago
I don't see any references to reverse engineering in the previous version.
ihuman 4y ago
The super hearts, coins, and stars were part of Periscope

wolf550e 4y ago

I know of one case of Twitter doing client side validation [1]. Maybe there are more? 1 - https://github.com/qntm/base2048#note https://github.com/qntm/base2048#note

jgerrish 4y ago

I wonder if diff is considered a "reverse engineering tool" I wonder if User-Agent "spoofing" is a "work around". That's what they do, you focus on one level, the magicians use misdirection. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out." Slow golf clap. This is not a criticism of Twitter. There are issues with these platforms and different values, but social media gives untold millions a voice, and the alternative is a monopoly.