3 ms·

Don't do that, try and redirect the discussion using some dumb definition/semantics argument. This data is public data on posts that X locks behind a wall in or

by ok_dad 2y ago

Don't do that, try and redirect the discussion using some dumb definition/semantics argument. This data is public data on posts that X locks behind a wall in order to force sign-ups and ad views. You and I both know the colloquial definition for "the people", it's literally the electorate of the state in question, in this case all the German citizens who are able to vote for the polticians who passed this public access law. This isn't the government trying to pry private company secrets from poor, downtrodden corporations, it's the government passing a law that public data from social media needs to be easy to access for researchers.

bloopernova 2y ago
thank you The more people that call out derail and divide attempts, the better this site gets.
- standyro 2y ago
  unfortunately this site is just as prone to thought bubbles, media bias, and disinformation campaigns, just like X...
- ok_dad 2y ago
  > The more people that call out People, in general, need to stop being such fucking wusses about calling out bad behavior, as proven in DC right now. Thanks for the support.
caminante 2y ago
I didn't see it as redirection. Per @Qwertox who parented this thread with useful context, it doesn't sound like "open to all" access. That's material. E: Here's the quote: > This provision requires large online platforms to provide researchers with immediate access to publicly available data
- ok_dad 2y ago
  > The GFF and Democracy Reporting International had argued that X had a duty under European law to provide easily researchable, collated access to information such as post reach, shares and likes - information theoretically available by laboriously clicking through thousands of posts but in practice impossible to access. Read the last half of that. The court agrees. > information theoretically available by laboriously clicking through thousands of posts
  - caminante 2y ago
    Did you intend to provide a different quote? Subject to confirmation, "researcher" != "all of the people." That was @atlantic's point.
    - ok_dad 2y ago
      Great, so we all agree that according to the German law, researchers have access to this data, so there is no need to argue about it! I would personally go so far as to say "the people" at large should also have access to the data, so that no one can weaponize the definition of "researcher" or "the people" (which is prone to happen, as evidenced here), but luckily that's not the conversation we're having today, in this case the law is very clear and the German courts agreed so. Also, the GP post by that individual had no point, it was ostensibly a question, but in the article they covered that in this case, according to the law and German courts, "the people" means "researchers", so they either didn't read the article or were redirecting for other reasons. I just wasn't going to play around with their "definitionalism" where definitions of simple things are the most important talking point in order to off-track a discussion.
      - caminante 2y ago
        > but in the article they covered that in this case, according to the law and German courts, "the people" means "researchers", From my review [1] [2], it appears that "researchers" is undefined. Ultimately, can anyone apply for full access for free? I'm sure a lot of people across the political spectrum are curious about this. If you have a clarification, great. If not, the point stands. X already has a firehose API solution [3]. While it's pay to access, it's unclear what compliance steps these researchers will have to jump through or whether anyone can just override this revenue stream for X and force it to turn over proprietary data that would otherwise be paywalled. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-civil-activists-claim-victory-case-against-musks-x-2025-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-civil-activists-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42976439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42976439 [3] https://mashable.com/article/twitter-elon-musk-paid-enterprise-api-access-pricing https://mashable.com/article/twitter-elon-musk-paid-enterpri...
trinsic2 2y ago
Moreover. Companies operate by Charter, via the will of the people (and the people is you or us). And regardless of any agreements companies have with shareholders, first and foremost, you have a responsibility to the people you live and operate with, to act for the peoples interests, otherwise you don't have a right to exist, contrary to the lack of action in law on this. A Charter is a grant, from the people, for any for-profit organization to exist, it comes with certain restrictions and it can be revoked at any time. Charter a written grant by a country's legislative or sovereign power [The People], by which a body such as a company, college, or city is founded and its rights and privileges defined.
- ok_dad 2y ago
  YES! Corporations are FOR THE PEOPLE! Currently, the tail is wagging the dog.
  - trinsic2 2y ago
    As I said, the law is not being respected, but it doesn't invalidate the law.
easytiger 2y ago
It's data the user has agreed to share with the company at agreement with their terms. The data is not public if it is not made public. If it was, they wouldn't need to compel them to hand it over. Who are the researchers and what thesis are they exploring?

by ok_dad 2y ago

bloopernova 2y ago

thank you The more people that call out derail and divide attempts, the better this site gets.

standyro 2y ago
unfortunately this site is just as prone to thought bubbles, media bias, and disinformation campaigns, just like X...
ok_dad 2y ago
> The more people that call out People, in general, need to stop being such fucking wusses about calling out bad behavior, as proven in DC right now. Thanks for the support.

caminante 2y ago

I didn't see it as redirection. Per @Qwertox who parented this thread with useful context, it doesn't sound like "open to all" access. That's material. E: Here's the quote: > This provision requires large online platforms to provide researchers with immediate access to publicly available data

ok_dad 2y ago
> The GFF and Democracy Reporting International had argued that X had a duty under European law to provide easily researchable, collated access to information such as post reach, shares and likes - information theoretically available by laboriously clicking through thousands of posts but in practice impossible to access. Read the last half of that. The court agrees. > information theoretically available by laboriously clicking through thousands of posts
- caminante 2y ago
  Did you intend to provide a different quote? Subject to confirmation, "researcher" != "all of the people." That was @atlantic's point.
  - ok_dad 2y ago
    Great, so we all agree that according to the German law, researchers have access to this data, so there is no need to argue about it! I would personally go so far as to say "the people" at large should also have access to the data, so that no one can weaponize the definition of "researcher" or "the people" (which is prone to happen, as evidenced here), but luckily that's not the conversation we're having today, in this case the law is very clear and the German courts agreed so. Also, the GP post by that individual had no point, it was ostensibly a question, but in the article they covered that in this case, according to the law and German courts, "the people" means "researchers", so they either didn't read the article or were redirecting for other reasons. I just wasn't going to play around with their "definitionalism" where definitions of simple things are the most important talking point in order to off-track a discussion.
    - caminante 2y ago
      > but in the article they covered that in this case, according to the law and German courts, "the people" means "researchers", From my review [1] [2], it appears that "researchers" is undefined. Ultimately, can anyone apply for full access for free? I'm sure a lot of people across the political spectrum are curious about this. If you have a clarification, great. If not, the point stands. X already has a firehose API solution [3]. While it's pay to access, it's unclear what compliance steps these researchers will have to jump through or whether anyone can just override this revenue stream for X and force it to turn over proprietary data that would otherwise be paywalled. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-civil-activists-claim-victory-case-against-musks-x-2025-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-civil-activists-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42976439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42976439 [3] https://mashable.com/article/twitter-elon-musk-paid-enterprise-api-access-pricing https://mashable.com/article/twitter-elon-musk-paid-enterpri...

trinsic2 2y ago

Moreover. Companies operate by Charter, via the will of the people (and the people is you or us). And regardless of any agreements companies have with shareholders, first and foremost, you have a responsibility to the people you live and operate with, to act for the peoples interests, otherwise you don't have a right to exist, contrary to the lack of action in law on this. A Charter is a grant, from the people, for any for-profit organization to exist, it comes with certain restrictions and it can be revoked at any time. Charter a written grant by a country's legislative or sovereign power [The People], by which a body such as a company, college, or city is founded and its rights and privileges defined.

ok_dad 2y ago
YES! Corporations are FOR THE PEOPLE! Currently, the tail is wagging the dog.
- trinsic2 2y ago
  As I said, the law is not being respected, but it doesn't invalidate the law.

easytiger 2y ago

It's data the user has agreed to share with the company at agreement with their terms. The data is not public if it is not made public. If it was, they wouldn't need to compel them to hand it over. Who are the researchers and what thesis are they exploring?