3 ms·

But my understand here is that this is being allowed via Twitter. Twitter is knowingly allowing this to take place, and by agreeing to Twitter's ToS, you are i

But my understand here is that this is being allowed via Twitter. Twitter is knowingly allowing this to take place, and by agreeing to Twitter's ToS, you are in effect, allowing this to happen. Essentially, what I see this as, is you not agreeing to Twitter freely sharing your information the way it does. So maybe instead of being angry with Klout, who has permission from Twitter to do this, you should be angry with Twitter, and revoke your permission in using your information?

eropple 15y ago
Twitter gives them access to my public timeline. That's fine. If they had a shred of decency they'd remove users who ask them to, and they clearly don't, but whatever. The bigger problem, and one that has nothing whatsoever to do with Twitter exposing this information, is the morally bankrupt turds at Klout asserting that I am using their service when I am not. They have plausible deniability, in the sense that "on" can refer to their harebrained 'analysis' of my timeline, but it's obvious that that's not their intended meaning. EDIT: There's an argument that Klout is possibly violating Twitter's Terms of Service, too: C. Your Service should not: ... impersonate or facilitate impersonation of others in a manner that can mislead, confuse, or deceive users. I'm pretty sure that "look, this person you know is 'on' Klout!" when I have and desire no relationship with their service would fall under this category (or would if Twitter actually enforced such rules, which it doesn't appear they do). "But we just say 'on' to mean 'we have some stuff about them!'" is unacceptable. Doubly so when they won't stop when asked. But user abuse seems to be endemic to the "social" industry, so while I'm kind of pissed, I'm not surprised.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  First, don't confuse me with someone defending Klout. I'm not. > Twitter gives them access to my public timeline. That's fine. > There's an argument that Klout is possibly violating Twitter's Terms of Service, too See, if Twitter gives them permission to do something, and they do it, then they have permission to do it. It's sleazy in how they do it, but, as you say: whatever. Here is the unfortunate thing. Twitter is allowing them to do this. Klout has permission. And, by using Twitter, you are in a sense giving Klout permission as well, through that nefarious ToS. You want to use Twitter? A part of using Twitter is allowing them to provide your information to Klout. There is nothing to say you have to use Twitter. There are other options out there. A lot of this seems to be entitlement-driven. You want something for free, but you dislike the terms. You are allowed to disagree with those terms, but don't misplace the blame here. You gave Twitter certain permissions. Twitter then uses those permissions and does with it what it will, which results in allow Klout to do what it will (and don't for a minute think that Twitter's public ToS is the only ToS). You've given your permission. It strikes me as wrong to attack Klout, who has Twitter's permission, and by extension, yours. Complain if you will, but understand that Twitter is at the centre of this. If you complain about Klout and leave Twitter blameless, you're being dishonest. If you can't agree to the ToS, don't use the service.
  - eropple 15y ago
    Again, this is crazy-talk. Twitter themselves says that Klout can't misrepresent that I am "on" their service. But they are. And, no, sorry, there are no other alternatives to Twitter. Literally zero. I mean, really--identi.ca? Don't make me laugh.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - jasonlotito 15y ago
      > Twitter themselves says that Klout can't misrepresent that I am "on" their service. Where does Twitter say this about Klout specifically? I missed that. After all, public policies and private policies can, and do, differ. > And, no, sorry, there are no other alternatives to Twitter. Literally zero. Literally zero? I do not think you know what that means. Regardless, this is wrong. It's not even debatable.

eropple 15y ago

Twitter gives them access to my public timeline. That's fine. If they had a shred of decency they'd remove users who ask them to, and they clearly don't, but whatever. The bigger problem, and one that has nothing whatsoever to do with Twitter exposing this information, is the morally bankrupt turds at Klout asserting that I am using their service when I am not. They have plausible deniability, in the sense that "on" can refer to their harebrained 'analysis' of my timeline, but it's obvious that that's not their intended meaning. EDIT: There's an argument that Klout is possibly violating Twitter's Terms of Service, too: C. Your Service should not: ... impersonate or facilitate impersonation of others in a manner that can mislead, confuse, or deceive users. I'm pretty sure that "look, this person you know is 'on' Klout!" when I have and desire no relationship with their service would fall under this category (or would if Twitter actually enforced such rules, which it doesn't appear they do). "But we just say 'on' to mean 'we have some stuff about them!'" is unacceptable. Doubly so when they won't stop when asked. But user abuse seems to be endemic to the "social" industry, so while I'm kind of pissed, I'm not surprised.

jasonlotito 15y ago
First, don't confuse me with someone defending Klout. I'm not. > Twitter gives them access to my public timeline. That's fine. > There's an argument that Klout is possibly violating Twitter's Terms of Service, too See, if Twitter gives them permission to do something, and they do it, then they have permission to do it. It's sleazy in how they do it, but, as you say: whatever. Here is the unfortunate thing. Twitter is allowing them to do this. Klout has permission. And, by using Twitter, you are in a sense giving Klout permission as well, through that nefarious ToS. You want to use Twitter? A part of using Twitter is allowing them to provide your information to Klout. There is nothing to say you have to use Twitter. There are other options out there. A lot of this seems to be entitlement-driven. You want something for free, but you dislike the terms. You are allowed to disagree with those terms, but don't misplace the blame here. You gave Twitter certain permissions. Twitter then uses those permissions and does with it what it will, which results in allow Klout to do what it will (and don't for a minute think that Twitter's public ToS is the only ToS). You've given your permission. It strikes me as wrong to attack Klout, who has Twitter's permission, and by extension, yours. Complain if you will, but understand that Twitter is at the centre of this. If you complain about Klout and leave Twitter blameless, you're being dishonest. If you can't agree to the ToS, don't use the service.
- eropple 15y ago
  Again, this is crazy-talk. Twitter themselves says that Klout can't misrepresent that I am "on" their service. But they are. And, no, sorry, there are no other alternatives to Twitter. Literally zero. I mean, really--identi.ca? Don't make me laugh.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - jasonlotito 15y ago
    > Twitter themselves says that Klout can't misrepresent that I am "on" their service. Where does Twitter say this about Klout specifically? I missed that. After all, public policies and private policies can, and do, differ. > And, no, sorry, there are no other alternatives to Twitter. Literally zero. Literally zero? I do not think you know what that means. Regardless, this is wrong. It's not even debatable.