8 ms·

Twitter TOS Change

106 points by archb 4y ago

ronreiter 4y ago
As much as it sucks, YouTube has the same clause and it makes a lot of sense for companies who monetize on ads. The fact that it was like that until now was bad for Twitter’s revenue.
- _djo_ 4y ago
  That's a fundamentally different situations. YouTube clients are for consumption only, meaning there's no value to YouTube in them and only revenue loss in terms of adverts not being shown. YouTube however does nothing to prevent content creators from using third party tools for creating, editing, uploading, and organising their videos. They'd be crazy too. Twitter users are a mix of passive consumers and active content creators and the most prolific and high value content creators tend to use third party clients and platforms. Seeing as though those people are the entire reason you have all those returning eyeballs on Twitter for advertisers to monetise in the first place you really want to do everything you can to make their experience as best as it can be. On top of that, the proportion of Twitter's user base that were using apps like Tweetbot or Twitterrific is by all accounts minuscule, so the impact on overall advertising revenue can't be huge. And given how many of those users appear to have been prolific tweeters whose content attracts others to the platform I'd say it's more than offset. There are also media reports that Tweetbot and Twitterrific had to pay for some API V2.0 features. There's no way this decision went through a proper business case analysis and was modelled for its impact on revenues. I'm guessing it's just Musk being capricious as usual and having nobody able to push back.
- simongr3dal 4y ago
  The big affected third-party clients would gladly have incorporated the ads into the timeline, if only twitter actually included them in the api response. Or they could have made a promoted tweets api and mandated in their terms of service that third party clients showing a timeline must include promoted tweets every now and then.
  - MrOwnPut 4y ago
    There's a lot that goes into showing ads, prebidding, making sure there's no nsfw content, etc. Even if they implemented it correctly you wouldn't really trust a 3rd party to show your ads and risk strikes on your account.
    - saurik 4y ago
      I don't understand your thought process. Who is owning this "account" on which "strikes" are going to happen? Twitter?
      - MrOwnPut 4y ago
        in Twitter's case it would be direct accounts with the advertisers. you have to make sure you only show certain companies ads next to certain content, or they will pull out. therefore you need to control the client. only show tier 2 ads next to nsfw content, etc.
        simongr3dal 4y ago
        Is there even such a thing built in to the current promoted tweets functionality?
        MrOwnPut 4y ago
        i'm not privy but i very much assume they do have different promoted tweets depending on whether you have the nsfw filter on. they also aren't going to show certain promoted tweets on certain hashtags, topics, etc.
      - simongr3dal 4y ago
        Ha! I just read the account bio, we’re talking to a damn robot. Doesn’t HN have a policy against this sort of thing?
        4y ago
- KronisLV 4y ago
  > As much as it sucks, YouTube has the same clause and it makes a lot of sense for companies who monetize on ads. I wonder why we couldn't just get something like: "If you create a third party UI, you must include the following ad web component in the interface: https://github.com/ https://github.com/... and the supporting mechanisms for that (user ID/cookies/whatever)" But instead, many companies attempt to disallow third party clients and any reverse engineering in general, whereas the few that do allow it don't think about the possibility of monetization in third party clients (legally enforced), or just have to deal with such configurations not being supported. And if the current ad technology doesn't work that way, then what prevent us from making it work that way? Why should the party that displays an ad always be the same one that's benefiting from it financially? Why couldn't I have some third party UI for a popular site that solves my personal gripes with the UI, while still showing ads on the behalf of that company that owns the original platform, so I don't get my socks sued off of me?
  - ascagnel_ 4y ago
    The biggest reason is that there's value in owning the user experience. Before streaming video took over, cable providers tried to put TiVo out of business by offering their own (crappier) DVR products and gating TiVo and DIY products like MythTV behind a flaky, poorly-supported product called CableCARD. If you own the user experience, you can push users into _your_ most profitable offerings. And it works shockingly well.
phnofive 4y ago
Curiously, this tool was most recently submitted for a previous Twitter TOS change about eight months ago; it prompted a lively discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31351013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31351013
phnofive 4y ago
Seems to be the only big change - this was added to a list of 'thou shalt not's: "use or access the Licensed Materials to create or attempt to create a substitute or similar service or product to the Twitter Applications" Goodbye, nitter(?)
- akerl_ 4y ago
  And Tweetbot, and Twitterific, and every other 3rd party app for using Twitter.
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    Which is ironic since some of those predate the official Twitter app
- nhtsamera 4y ago
  Ex post facto, as usual. What are the odds that this whole imbroglio happened because their third-party APIs broke and they can't figure out how to fix them?
  - judge2020 4y ago
    The funny part is that there are fairly stable internal (as in, 1p client but open to the internet) Twitter APIs that don't require authentication.
  - gavanwilhite 4y ago
    I think that this has a way higher chance of being true than people have been assuming. The slack convo leak would have been the same either way. It really has a strong smell of protect-my-ego.
- bronikowski 4y ago
  > Goodbye, nitter(?) That would be devastating for me. Not only it's the only way of looking at anything on Twitter (I invite you to open a thread on mobile. I get 3 modals covering 95% of a screen) but it's also how I follow some accounts via RSS.
fatfox 4y ago
It couldn’t be more explicit: no more 3rd party Twitter clients.
0xy 4y ago
Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat and TikTok all forbid third party clients. The only outlier, Reddit, is massively unprofitable. You can't run an advertising business while inviting competitors to use your content for free.
- geysersam 4y ago
  It's very unfortunate their business models forbid this. The third party client I use for Reddit is great! (redditisfun) It'd be so much better if we just paid a small sum to own our accounts on those platforms. How much would it cost? Like a Netflix subscription? That'd be worth it. I guess one reason why that isn't possible is that the platforms only work if everyone* is there, irregardless of income. If there's a subscription fee not everyone will afford it, especially young people who are (arguably) culturally more influential.
  - benwad 4y ago
    Couldn't they launch a paid ad-free tier that grants API access? i.e. the user pays for the ad-free experience, and the 3rd-party apps would only work for those users who have paid. I can't think of any companies who have done that but it seems like a reasonable solution.
    - geysersam 4y ago
      Personally I'd love that, and also pay for it. If it also reduces the incentives to implement dark patterns to boost "engagement" and collect personal information, that's just cherry on top
- notRobot 4y ago
  Reddit isn't profitable because that's not their focus. It's pretty clear that they're focusing on growth over profits at the moment.
- Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
  Twitter never included ads in the feed api, so the clients where just showing the data twitter fed them. You could expose the apis (or embed the ads into the feed api) that fill the ad spots and report back engagements with those ads, then state in TOS that clients not allowed to remove the ads from the feed and impose design rules on how they are presented to users. You could do what Adsense does and create a library for clients to embed into their applications. However I can see client devs wanting a slice of the adrev pie or a discount on their api charges if they were forced to included ads. Imo it’s just easier to forbid 3rd party clients, that you get to control the experience (including ads) however you want / move fast changing things up, without having to go though the process of making sure 3rd party clients are on bored with the changes
nothrowaways 4y ago
Diffchecker is such an interesting tool. It should be integrated with every TOS
- hiccuphippo 4y ago
  I'd love to see a website that keeps track of ToS over time for multiple companies.
  - giancarlostoro 4y ago
    I thought TOSDR did this but apparently not. Might be something to contact the founders over. Of course they provide summaries not the raw texts. https://tosdr.org/ https://tosdr.org/
tomcam 4y ago
Shout out to diffchecker, which I didn’t know about. Perfect UI.
- bmn__ 4y ago
  Kompare is much better. <https://apps.kde.org/kompare/ https://apps.kde.org/kompare/>
  - hhmc 4y ago
    How is a downloadable gui at all comparable?
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      *Komparable
  - KomoD 4y ago
    Not really, linux only, worse interface, needs to be downloaded instead of web based
anthk 4y ago
Back in the day https://m.twitter.com https://m.twitter.com worked great everywhere: Lynx, Links, Dillo, Emacs, a toaster, everwyhere. Even under low bw places. Now Twtr's turd without Ublock Origin it's unusable. Also, no JSless clients, so bye legacy users with underpowered smartphones and desktops/laptops.
MadVikingGod 4y ago
Twitter: We are going to ban 3rd party apps because of a long standing rule. (tomorrow) Twitter: Oh hey, we have a minor update to our TOS.
rsolva 4y ago
Another walled garden closing up holes in the fence. I understand the reasoning from an advertise-driven business perspective, but it won't help Twitter in the long run. Many of their power users providing engaging content will seek out other venues to interact with their audience on their own terms. I already see many of them having a great time in the Fediverse and new apps and tools are popping up like mushrooms, providing a much more compelling and diverse ecosystem. Give it a few years and I predict many more have grown sceptical towards platforms that eventually change for the worse, and has sought out more open systems.
MisterBastahrd 4y ago
I don't think this is Musk being tyrannical as much as him being afraid that he's losing ad revenue.

106 points by archb 4y ago

As much as it sucks, YouTube has the same clause and it makes a lot of sense for companies who monetize on ads. The fact that it was like that until now was bad for Twitter’s revenue.

_djo_ 4y ago
That's a fundamentally different situations. YouTube clients are for consumption only, meaning there's no value to YouTube in them and only revenue loss in terms of adverts not being shown. YouTube however does nothing to prevent content creators from using third party tools for creating, editing, uploading, and organising their videos. They'd be crazy too. Twitter users are a mix of passive consumers and active content creators and the most prolific and high value content creators tend to use third party clients and platforms. Seeing as though those people are the entire reason you have all those returning eyeballs on Twitter for advertisers to monetise in the first place you really want to do everything you can to make their experience as best as it can be. On top of that, the proportion of Twitter's user base that were using apps like Tweetbot or Twitterrific is by all accounts minuscule, so the impact on overall advertising revenue can't be huge. And given how many of those users appear to have been prolific tweeters whose content attracts others to the platform I'd say it's more than offset. There are also media reports that Tweetbot and Twitterrific had to pay for some API V2.0 features. There's no way this decision went through a proper business case analysis and was modelled for its impact on revenues. I'm guessing it's just Musk being capricious as usual and having nobody able to push back.
simongr3dal 4y ago
The big affected third-party clients would gladly have incorporated the ads into the timeline, if only twitter actually included them in the api response. Or they could have made a promoted tweets api and mandated in their terms of service that third party clients showing a timeline must include promoted tweets every now and then.
- MrOwnPut 4y ago
  There's a lot that goes into showing ads, prebidding, making sure there's no nsfw content, etc. Even if they implemented it correctly you wouldn't really trust a 3rd party to show your ads and risk strikes on your account.
  - saurik 4y ago
    I don't understand your thought process. Who is owning this "account" on which "strikes" are going to happen? Twitter?
    - MrOwnPut 4y ago
      in Twitter's case it would be direct accounts with the advertisers. you have to make sure you only show certain companies ads next to certain content, or they will pull out. therefore you need to control the client. only show tier 2 ads next to nsfw content, etc.
      - simongr3dal 4y ago
        Is there even such a thing built in to the current promoted tweets functionality?
        MrOwnPut 4y ago
        i'm not privy but i very much assume they do have different promoted tweets depending on whether you have the nsfw filter on. they also aren't going to show certain promoted tweets on certain hashtags, topics, etc.
    - simongr3dal 4y ago
      Ha! I just read the account bio, we’re talking to a damn robot. Doesn’t HN have a policy against this sort of thing?
      - 4y ago
KronisLV 4y ago
> As much as it sucks, YouTube has the same clause and it makes a lot of sense for companies who monetize on ads. I wonder why we couldn't just get something like: "If you create a third party UI, you must include the following ad web component in the interface: https://github.com/ https://github.com/... and the supporting mechanisms for that (user ID/cookies/whatever)" But instead, many companies attempt to disallow third party clients and any reverse engineering in general, whereas the few that do allow it don't think about the possibility of monetization in third party clients (legally enforced), or just have to deal with such configurations not being supported. And if the current ad technology doesn't work that way, then what prevent us from making it work that way? Why should the party that displays an ad always be the same one that's benefiting from it financially? Why couldn't I have some third party UI for a popular site that solves my personal gripes with the UI, while still showing ads on the behalf of that company that owns the original platform, so I don't get my socks sued off of me?
- ascagnel_ 4y ago
  The biggest reason is that there's value in owning the user experience. Before streaming video took over, cable providers tried to put TiVo out of business by offering their own (crappier) DVR products and gating TiVo and DIY products like MythTV behind a flaky, poorly-supported product called CableCARD. If you own the user experience, you can push users into _your_ most profitable offerings. And it works shockingly well.

phnofive 4y ago

Curiously, this tool was most recently submitted for a previous Twitter TOS change about eight months ago; it prompted a lively discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31351013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31351013

phnofive 4y ago

Seems to be the only big change - this was added to a list of 'thou shalt not's: "use or access the Licensed Materials to create or attempt to create a substitute or similar service or product to the Twitter Applications" Goodbye, nitter(?)

akerl_ 4y ago
And Tweetbot, and Twitterific, and every other 3rd party app for using Twitter.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  Which is ironic since some of those predate the official Twitter app
nhtsamera 4y ago
Ex post facto, as usual. What are the odds that this whole imbroglio happened because their third-party APIs broke and they can't figure out how to fix them?
- judge2020 4y ago
  The funny part is that there are fairly stable internal (as in, 1p client but open to the internet) Twitter APIs that don't require authentication.
- gavanwilhite 4y ago
  I think that this has a way higher chance of being true than people have been assuming. The slack convo leak would have been the same either way. It really has a strong smell of protect-my-ego.
bronikowski 4y ago
> Goodbye, nitter(?) That would be devastating for me. Not only it's the only way of looking at anything on Twitter (I invite you to open a thread on mobile. I get 3 modals covering 95% of a screen) but it's also how I follow some accounts via RSS.

fatfox 4y ago

It couldn’t be more explicit: no more 3rd party Twitter clients.

0xy 4y ago

Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat and TikTok all forbid third party clients. The only outlier, Reddit, is massively unprofitable. You can't run an advertising business while inviting competitors to use your content for free.

geysersam 4y ago
It's very unfortunate their business models forbid this. The third party client I use for Reddit is great! (redditisfun) It'd be so much better if we just paid a small sum to own our accounts on those platforms. How much would it cost? Like a Netflix subscription? That'd be worth it. I guess one reason why that isn't possible is that the platforms only work if everyone* is there, irregardless of income. If there's a subscription fee not everyone will afford it, especially young people who are (arguably) culturally more influential.
- benwad 4y ago
  Couldn't they launch a paid ad-free tier that grants API access? i.e. the user pays for the ad-free experience, and the 3rd-party apps would only work for those users who have paid. I can't think of any companies who have done that but it seems like a reasonable solution.
  - geysersam 4y ago
    Personally I'd love that, and also pay for it. If it also reduces the incentives to implement dark patterns to boost "engagement" and collect personal information, that's just cherry on top
notRobot 4y ago
Reddit isn't profitable because that's not their focus. It's pretty clear that they're focusing on growth over profits at the moment.
Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
Twitter never included ads in the feed api, so the clients where just showing the data twitter fed them. You could expose the apis (or embed the ads into the feed api) that fill the ad spots and report back engagements with those ads, then state in TOS that clients not allowed to remove the ads from the feed and impose design rules on how they are presented to users. You could do what Adsense does and create a library for clients to embed into their applications. However I can see client devs wanting a slice of the adrev pie or a discount on their api charges if they were forced to included ads. Imo it’s just easier to forbid 3rd party clients, that you get to control the experience (including ads) however you want / move fast changing things up, without having to go though the process of making sure 3rd party clients are on bored with the changes

nothrowaways 4y ago

Diffchecker is such an interesting tool. It should be integrated with every TOS

hiccuphippo 4y ago
I'd love to see a website that keeps track of ToS over time for multiple companies.
- giancarlostoro 4y ago
  I thought TOSDR did this but apparently not. Might be something to contact the founders over. Of course they provide summaries not the raw texts. https://tosdr.org/ https://tosdr.org/

tomcam 4y ago

Shout out to diffchecker, which I didn’t know about. Perfect UI.

bmn__ 4y ago
Kompare is much better. <https://apps.kde.org/kompare/ https://apps.kde.org/kompare/>
- hhmc 4y ago
  How is a downloadable gui at all comparable?
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    *Komparable
- KomoD 4y ago
  Not really, linux only, worse interface, needs to be downloaded instead of web based

anthk 4y ago

Back in the day https://m.twitter.com https://m.twitter.com worked great everywhere: Lynx, Links, Dillo, Emacs, a toaster, everwyhere. Even under low bw places. Now Twtr's turd without Ublock Origin it's unusable. Also, no JSless clients, so bye legacy users with underpowered smartphones and desktops/laptops.

MadVikingGod 4y ago

Twitter: We are going to ban 3rd party apps because of a long standing rule. (tomorrow) Twitter: Oh hey, we have a minor update to our TOS.

rsolva 4y ago

Another walled garden closing up holes in the fence. I understand the reasoning from an advertise-driven business perspective, but it won't help Twitter in the long run. Many of their power users providing engaging content will seek out other venues to interact with their audience on their own terms. I already see many of them having a great time in the Fediverse and new apps and tools are popping up like mushrooms, providing a much more compelling and diverse ecosystem. Give it a few years and I predict many more have grown sceptical towards platforms that eventually change for the worse, and has sought out more open systems.

MisterBastahrd 4y ago

I don't think this is Musk being tyrannical as much as him being afraid that he's losing ad revenue.