5 ms·

Part of his pitch during the acquisition was charging for embeds, so I would not be making any bets on the API loosening up

by fooey 4y ago

IshKebab 4y ago
That would be awesome. Maybe sites will stop using them and take screenshots instead.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > Maybe sites will stop using them Yeah, good luck getting someone like the BBC to pay for embedding tweets. > and take screenshots instead. I'd assume that would be against TOS (probably is already.)
  - lazide 4y ago
    I can’t imagine a screenshot of a tweet would be anything but fair use, or stoppable. Worse case, the BBC takes a screenshot of another screenshot?
  - addaon 4y ago
    Accessing tweets does not seem to require agreeing to any Twitter TOS. They have the option to not serve data to your client (browser), but once they've chosen to, there doesn't seem to be any agreement that would restrict your right to screenshot. Republishing those screenshots could run afoul of copyright restrictions, but no more so than embedding currently does.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      I've never seen TOS that don't state you agree to them by using the service...
      - squeaky-clean 4y ago
        You can visit Twitter (logged out) and see tweets without ever having agreed to or being shown the TOS. After viewing 5 or so they put up a big "Please Register" popup that cannot be closed, but if you clear your cookies you're good again.
      - addaon 4y ago
        Go to a direct link to a tweet from an anonymous browser. Until a court case says that the act of receiving bytes from an HTTP server constitutes agreement to a contract that was never even presented to you, it's hard to see how you can possibly have agreed to a TOS. The user must be presented with a TOS and have the option to reject it in order to have agreed to it.
        freejazz 4y ago
        You agree to using the TOS by accessing the service, have you seen a case not enforcing that paradigm?
        GabrielTFS 4y ago
        In Specht v. Netscape, the court declined to hold Netscape’s browsewrap (i.e. "putting a link to the ToS somewhere in the web page") enforceable because the hyperlink’s placement at the bottom of the screen failed to put users on notice of Netscape’s terms. In Hines v. Overstock.com, the court found Overstock.com’s browsewrap unenforceable because the website failed to prominently display the link to the online agreement in a way that would put users on notice of the website’s terms and conditions. And if you think it's all because "you have to scroll to see the hyperlink" and that Twitter's one is valid because there's always a "Terms and Services" hyperlink in small text on the screen at all times, I can tell you of Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, in which the court held that Barnes & Noble’s browsewrap was unenforceable despite the fact that the hyperlink was prominently placed next to the buttons users must click in order to complete online purchases. Van Tassell v. United Marketing Group also states: > Because no affirmative action is required by the website user to agree to the terms of a contract other than his or her use of the website, the determination of the validity of a browsewrap contract depends on whether the user has actual or constructive knowledge of a website's terms and conditions. In other words, w.r.t. the enforceability of Twitter's ToS on users that have never agreed to it explicitly, they have the burden of proof and have to give the court convincing proof that you knew about their ToS when you broke it. This is all based on a rather obvious common law standard: > An offeree, regardless of apparent manifestation of his consent, is not bound by inconspicuous contractual provisions of which he is unaware, contained in a document whose contractual nature is not obvious. - Specht v. Netscape So yes, I have seen cases not enforcing this paradigm. Sources: Specht v. Netscape: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9587085159184835436&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=958708515918483... Hines v. Overstock.com: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16322454073167032785&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=163224540731670... Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11003811139217543321&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=110038111392175... Van Tassell v. United Marketing Group: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1749942432170562724&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=174994243217056...
    - zimpenfish 4y ago
      > Republishing those screenshots could run afoul of copyright restrictions, but no more so than embedding currently does. Embedding should be fine because that's being "published" by Twitter who you have already given permission to publish (cf [1]) although I'd have thought (IANAL) that a screenshot would be a good example of "fair use for commentary" except when e.g. news services embed tweets, they're often not commenting on those tweets specifically, just giving a general flavour of sentiment. It's a minefield, probably. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jwherrman/want-to-publish-a-twitter-image-legally-just-embe https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jwherrman/want-to-publi...
- oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
  Lots of ppl already do this on twitter itself - instead of quoting or replying, they'll screenshot another tweet and embed it. I suspect they're trying to defend against the tweet being deleted, but they've just opened up a whole new front of potential abuse - I treat all such fake embeds as suspicious, and I would if they were published on a website too.
  - epse 4y ago
    It's also partially to avoid boosting the screenshotted content, if you want to for example call something out as being bad or false. I do agree it makes it harder to spot fakes
thinkingemote 4y ago
I wonder if this was part of the whole media / video embeds - so a musician could release music and news websites etc would pay for the embeds. Musicians could then get a cut of that money - or a cut of the advertising of it. Maybe pay for no ads in the embeds?

Part of his pitch during the acquisition was charging for embeds, so I would not be making any bets on the API loosening up

by fooey 4y ago

Part of his pitch during the acquisition was charging for embeds, so I would not be making any bets on the API loosening up

IshKebab 4y ago

That would be awesome. Maybe sites will stop using them and take screenshots instead.

zimpenfish 4y ago
> Maybe sites will stop using them Yeah, good luck getting someone like the BBC to pay for embedding tweets. > and take screenshots instead. I'd assume that would be against TOS (probably is already.)
- lazide 4y ago
  I can’t imagine a screenshot of a tweet would be anything but fair use, or stoppable. Worse case, the BBC takes a screenshot of another screenshot?
- addaon 4y ago
  Accessing tweets does not seem to require agreeing to any Twitter TOS. They have the option to not serve data to your client (browser), but once they've chosen to, there doesn't seem to be any agreement that would restrict your right to screenshot. Republishing those screenshots could run afoul of copyright restrictions, but no more so than embedding currently does.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    I've never seen TOS that don't state you agree to them by using the service...
    - squeaky-clean 4y ago
      You can visit Twitter (logged out) and see tweets without ever having agreed to or being shown the TOS. After viewing 5 or so they put up a big "Please Register" popup that cannot be closed, but if you clear your cookies you're good again.
    - addaon 4y ago
      Go to a direct link to a tweet from an anonymous browser. Until a court case says that the act of receiving bytes from an HTTP server constitutes agreement to a contract that was never even presented to you, it's hard to see how you can possibly have agreed to a TOS. The user must be presented with a TOS and have the option to reject it in order to have agreed to it.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        You agree to using the TOS by accessing the service, have you seen a case not enforcing that paradigm?
        GabrielTFS 4y ago
        In Specht v. Netscape, the court declined to hold Netscape’s browsewrap (i.e. "putting a link to the ToS somewhere in the web page") enforceable because the hyperlink’s placement at the bottom of the screen failed to put users on notice of Netscape’s terms. In Hines v. Overstock.com, the court found Overstock.com’s browsewrap unenforceable because the website failed to prominently display the link to the online agreement in a way that would put users on notice of the website’s terms and conditions. And if you think it's all because "you have to scroll to see the hyperlink" and that Twitter's one is valid because there's always a "Terms and Services" hyperlink in small text on the screen at all times, I can tell you of Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, in which the court held that Barnes & Noble’s browsewrap was unenforceable despite the fact that the hyperlink was prominently placed next to the buttons users must click in order to complete online purchases. Van Tassell v. United Marketing Group also states: > Because no affirmative action is required by the website user to agree to the terms of a contract other than his or her use of the website, the determination of the validity of a browsewrap contract depends on whether the user has actual or constructive knowledge of a website's terms and conditions. In other words, w.r.t. the enforceability of Twitter's ToS on users that have never agreed to it explicitly, they have the burden of proof and have to give the court convincing proof that you knew about their ToS when you broke it. This is all based on a rather obvious common law standard: > An offeree, regardless of apparent manifestation of his consent, is not bound by inconspicuous contractual provisions of which he is unaware, contained in a document whose contractual nature is not obvious. - Specht v. Netscape So yes, I have seen cases not enforcing this paradigm. Sources: Specht v. Netscape: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9587085159184835436&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=958708515918483... Hines v. Overstock.com: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16322454073167032785&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=163224540731670... Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11003811139217543321&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=110038111392175... Van Tassell v. United Marketing Group: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1749942432170562724&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=174994243217056...
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    > Republishing those screenshots could run afoul of copyright restrictions, but no more so than embedding currently does. Embedding should be fine because that's being "published" by Twitter who you have already given permission to publish (cf [1]) although I'd have thought (IANAL) that a screenshot would be a good example of "fair use for commentary" except when e.g. news services embed tweets, they're often not commenting on those tweets specifically, just giving a general flavour of sentiment. It's a minefield, probably. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jwherrman/want-to-publish-a-twitter-image-legally-just-embe https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jwherrman/want-to-publi...
oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
Lots of ppl already do this on twitter itself - instead of quoting or replying, they'll screenshot another tweet and embed it. I suspect they're trying to defend against the tweet being deleted, but they've just opened up a whole new front of potential abuse - I treat all such fake embeds as suspicious, and I would if they were published on a website too.
- epse 4y ago
  It's also partially to avoid boosting the screenshotted content, if you want to for example call something out as being bad or false. I do agree it makes it harder to spot fakes

thinkingemote 4y ago

I wonder if this was part of the whole media / video embeds - so a musician could release music and news websites etc would pay for the embeds. Musicians could then get a cut of that money - or a cut of the advertising of it. Maybe pay for no ads in the embeds?