3 ms·

I don't know the specifics about Twitter's API saga over the years but... why isn't this the case? Why does Twitter need to be involved on the client side with

I don't know the specifics about Twitter's API saga over the years but... why isn't this the case? Why does Twitter need to be involved on the client side with consumption of the API?

vkou 4y ago
> Why does Twitter need to be involved on the client side with consumption of the API? They don't need to be involved, they want to be involved, and they have the legal backing to do so.
- saurik 4y ago
  Can you provide any citation for them having "legal backing"? I literally participate in hearings at the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress over people providing adversarial interoperability and I have never seen any functional legal argument against such.
  - vkou 4y ago
    The CFAA forbids unauthorized use of an API. By banning third-party clients, Twitter is making it very clear what constitutes unauthorized use.
    - placatedmayhem 4y ago
      I see plenty of discussion about CFAA being used against scrapers, particularly automated "bot" scrapers, but I don't see anything about alternative clients, where a human consumer of the service is barred from using the API. But I also only did cursory searching, so some sources for CFAA applied to API would be helpful. I'm not sure how this would be any different than other software projects that use an API they don't own. Things like Cider for Apple Music, Ripcord for Slack, and the many Spotify clients all come to mind. Perhaps those are less aggressive in pursing 3rd party clients?
Telemakhos 4y ago
> Why does Twitter need to be involved on the client side with consumption of the API? Twitter is an advertising company. Alternative clients do not show Twitter's ads nor return to Twitter user data, so Twitter makes no money when alternative clients get used but still incurs bandwidth costs. There is no profit, only cost, in providing an exchange for short text messages; the profit all comes in the advertising, and that requires control of the client UI.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Just yet another reason to eradicate this cancerous, disgusting business model. It seems like the majority of the evils of tech in the past decade can be attributed to it.
rsj_hn 4y ago
The idea is you get the content for free if you also get the ads. Why do you think publishers don't expose an API client that serves their content for free? The issue is why can't Twitter charge for tweets via their API, but offer them for free in a browser if they are served alongside ads. Perhaps their own internal research suggests so few people would be willing to pay that it wouldn't be worth maintaining the API, but it would be nice to hear more info about this.

I don't know the specifics about Twitter's API saga over the years but... why isn't this the case? Why does Twitter need to be involved on the client side with consumption of the API?

vkou 4y ago

> Why does Twitter need to be involved on the client side with consumption of the API? They don't need to be involved, they want to be involved, and they have the legal backing to do so.

saurik 4y ago
Can you provide any citation for them having "legal backing"? I literally participate in hearings at the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress over people providing adversarial interoperability and I have never seen any functional legal argument against such.
- vkou 4y ago
  The CFAA forbids unauthorized use of an API. By banning third-party clients, Twitter is making it very clear what constitutes unauthorized use.
  - placatedmayhem 4y ago
    I see plenty of discussion about CFAA being used against scrapers, particularly automated "bot" scrapers, but I don't see anything about alternative clients, where a human consumer of the service is barred from using the API. But I also only did cursory searching, so some sources for CFAA applied to API would be helpful. I'm not sure how this would be any different than other software projects that use an API they don't own. Things like Cider for Apple Music, Ripcord for Slack, and the many Spotify clients all come to mind. Perhaps those are less aggressive in pursing 3rd party clients?

Telemakhos 4y ago

> Why does Twitter need to be involved on the client side with consumption of the API? Twitter is an advertising company. Alternative clients do not show Twitter's ads nor return to Twitter user data, so Twitter makes no money when alternative clients get used but still incurs bandwidth costs. There is no profit, only cost, in providing an exchange for short text messages; the profit all comes in the advertising, and that requires control of the client UI.

Nextgrid 4y ago
Just yet another reason to eradicate this cancerous, disgusting business model. It seems like the majority of the evils of tech in the past decade can be attributed to it.

rsj_hn 4y ago

The idea is you get the content for free if you also get the ads. Why do you think publishers don't expose an API client that serves their content for free? The issue is why can't Twitter charge for tweets via their API, but offer them for free in a browser if they are served alongside ads. Perhaps their own internal research suggests so few people would be willing to pay that it wouldn't be worth maintaining the API, but it would be nice to hear more info about this.