[HN Gopher] Twitter Terms of Service Diff
___________________________________________________________________
Twitter Terms of Service Diff
Author : taubek
Score : 211 points
Date : 2022-05-12 08:52 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.diffchecker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.diffchecker.com)
| hayyyyydos wrote:
| I'm really not a fan of sites that pop up "Log in with Google"
| with your account details prefilled. It's creepy.
| SquareWheel wrote:
| I don't like it either. You can thankfully turn it off in your
| Google settings.
|
| https://www.howtogeek.com/735152/how-to-turn-off-the-sign-in...
| slimginz wrote:
| Thank you! I try my hardest not to use Google for anything
| besides Gmail and YouTube and that popup always infuriated
| me. Had no idea you could turn it off.
| woodrowbarlow wrote:
| your browser or password manager is pre-filling the details,
| not the site.
| Liquid_Fire wrote:
| No, this is Google providing authentication with your Google
| account to third-party websites. If you are already logged
| into a Google account, it suggests that you log in with that
| account with a popup saying "Continue as <your name>" and
| shows your email and avatar.
|
| It's an iframe so the website itself doesn't have access to
| your data, but this is not obvious just from looking at it -
| it looks like part of the site. To me it feels like it
| teaches users to trust websites in ways that make them
| susceptible to phishing.
| notRobot wrote:
| Ah, I didn't know that it's an iframe and I'm always a bit
| creeped out by it (it really isn't obvious!). Thanks!
| rossdavidh wrote:
| I did not experience any such thing when clicking on this link.
| I use FF and Ubuntu, but I do have a Google account that is
| linked to plenty of other stuff.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| It's Google who knows your data, not the site.
| [deleted]
| some_furry wrote:
| Oh, I guess I cannot do stuff like this anymore:
|
| https://soatok.blog/2020/04/27/why-server-side-input-validat...
| informal007 wrote:
| dsaavy wrote:
| I've had an idea written down for a while about how it would be
| cool to have a tool like this but as a browser extension. It
| would show you exactly what on the page has been changed and also
| notify you when changes occur to pages or articles you
| "subscribe" to.
|
| The idea would be that you can "subscribe" to news articles that
| are often updated, redacted, changed etc. with information that
| completely changes the entire story. Think about a major national
| event where the first reports were completely wrong, it's updated
| 3 days later with correct information, but the public still
| primarily believes the first version of the story.
|
| Anyways, figured I'd share this idea (since ideas are worth $0
| without execution). Hoping diffchecker or someone else could
| tackle a project like this!
| Melatonic wrote:
| Cool idea actually - I like this - in the age of online "print"
| media it is just so easy to change the text.
| baisq wrote:
| There is absolutely nothing interesting in this diff that I can
| see?
| coding123 wrote:
| The only thing I got from this is that Twitter is an Irish
| company.
| trollied wrote:
| Yeah, it's just removing Periscope & adding references to other
| paid services, which have their own terms.
| taubek wrote:
| There is a small part that talks about reverse engineering.
| romanovcode wrote:
| Yeah, pretty clickbait article. (Because obv. people assume it
| is something to do with content policy since Musk bought it)
| majewsky wrote:
| There is no article, and it's also not clickbait since there
| are in fact new ToS. The assumptions that you imply say more
| about you than about other people.
| capableweb wrote:
| Seems the following part was added:
|
| > You agree that you will not work around any technical
| limitations in the software provided to you as part of the
| Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the
| software, except and only to the extent that applicable law
| expressly permits.
|
| That seems relevant to various groups who calls themselves
| "hackers" :)
| anthropodie wrote:
| So I am guessing the days of using front-ends like Nitter are
| limited?
|
| I thought Musk would lean more towards an open platform and
| maybe would even support ActivityPub for Twitter (I can get
| pretty optimistic lol) but I guess that's not going to
| happen.
| zwily wrote:
| Musk does not own Twitter yet, and won't for months.
| slightwinder wrote:
| It can also mean they aim to enforce their own new API, on
| which they are working for some time now. Making some juicy
| money is always a good motivation for changes.
| salimmadjd wrote:
| Different (maybe controversial)take.
|
| You should be given the choice to be grandfathered into the
| version of TOS upon first using that service.
|
| I think with social media where value is derived by ongoing time
| investment of users, the TOS changes should only be applied after
| mutual agreement.
|
| When I invest hours into helping to flourish a community, I need
| to be assured the company holds their side of the contract and
| not change the terms at any arbitrary time.
|
| I disagree with the notion that you can stop using it, if you
| don't agree with the new TOS.
|
| social media is different than let's say visiting Politico, where
| I'm just a consumer and not a contributor. Politico doesn't owe
| me anything.
|
| When you start contributing and building value under an initial
| sets of policy and agreements that initial agreement should
| remain in place until mutually agreed to change it.
|
| I understand that causes some operational headaches, but it's
| just cost of running a social media company.
| randomfool wrote:
| What if the ToS change is to curb abuse? Can users just opt-out
| and continue their abuse?
|
| What if the abuse is costing Twitter significant money? I see
| language about decompiling. Do they have to continue providing
| service to companies who may be exploiting loopholes in the
| ToS?
| bee_rider wrote:
| I'm assuming the TOS you originally agreed to had a clause that
| is something like "we can unilaterally change this." So, you
| could I guess check the TOS when you are making an account, and
| only use sites that don't have a clause like this. Likely this
| will significantly reduce you selection of social media
| sites... this just seems to me to indicate that investing too
| much effort into improving social media communities is not a
| worthwhile endeavor (or, maybe you find it to be a fun hobby,
| so just do it for fun and don't expect any payback).
|
| Realistically most sites want to exploit people like you.
| pc86 wrote:
| This is probably not super controversial, especially here. But,
| I need to point out TOS changes are currently only applied
| after mutual agreement. You agree by continuing to use the
| service ( _that_ may be a controversial statement here, but not
| really elsewhere). I would disagree with the implicit statement
| that Twitter owes any of its users anything, or at least that
| if Twitter does, so does Politico.
| gpm wrote:
| By the same logic, are social media companies somehow obligated
| to never shutdown as long as they have users?
|
| If not, can they shut down and then only come back for users
| using non-grandfathered terms?
|
| If so, can they shut down for only users using grandfathered
| terms?
|
| Aren't we now back to where we started?
|
| ---
|
| I disagree pretty fundamentally that you have any right to have
| a company continue to host content for you (which is equivalent
| to having a right to having a company repeat what you said to
| anyone who asks - which is clearly a free speech violation)
| short of them signing a contract with you guaranteeing that.
|
| I agree that as a user it's very frustrating when something you
| use changes what it is, but I don't see how a social media
| platform is any different from a bar in that regards. They both
| derive a lot of their value from their users, it's frustrating
| for the users of both if they fundamentally change who they
| are, but it's their right do that anyways.
| dustingetz wrote:
| it is simply balance of power between parties like all human
| affairs
|
| if you want to improve it - work to increase accountability
| (so more liars and cheaters get caught) & accessibility (so
| young and fresh minds have opportunity) and these two things
| together benefit new competitors over abusive incumbents, and
| society as a whole
| KeepFlying wrote:
| I'm not sure a bar is the best analogy here though. Yes a bar
| also derives value from it's users in a way, but a customers
| value there only really exists for as long as they are in the
| building. The customer doesn't invest their time and effort
| in long term value that exists after they leave. There's a
| moderate community aspect (referrals, recommendations, etc)
| but not as strongly as social media (or any contribution
| based site). Feeling a bar owes you something here seems like
| a stretch unless they solicit donations/volunteers to do a
| renovation or something.
|
| With social media sites a user is adding content that
| continues to provide value over time. The user is investing
| their time, expertise and energy (and often IP as well since
| some sites claim ownership of contributions), into the site.
| When they leave, that content often sticks around. It's
| reasonable for the user to feel that that site owes them
| something in return.
|
| Legally and realistically I'm not sure how that can be
| implemented, but the desire there is reasonable and different
| than a bar.
| gpm wrote:
| Sure, a bar isn't a perfect analogy, I used it because it
| was the first thing that came to mind that got the point
| across about community building (which seemed to be the
| main thing the person I was responding to considered to be
| of value).
|
| Maybe a stronger analogy would be a maker space, since the
| community building bit is at least as strong as with a bar
| (maybe stronger), and there's some sort of "content" that
| you create as well (though unlike on twitter, much of the
| content is physical property instead of information).
|
| You might reach a conclusion that you should have GDPR like
| data-rights as a result of that analogy, but I don't think
| it materially affects any of the conclusions I'm arguing in
| the post about investment of time and energy not giving you
| the right to continued service.
| mike00632 wrote:
| I have recently been getting emails from Photobucket saying
| that I need to pay for their service now or they will delete
| my photos. There is no option to download my photos without
| paying. If I want to access them at all then I must pay.
|
| I don't know what to think about whether this is right or
| wrong but it sure feels scummy. It also makes my worry about
| what might happen when bigger internet companies are down on
| their luck.
| gpm wrote:
| > There is no option to download my photos without paying
|
| If I was going to target something here to fix, it would be
| this. Holding your data hostage feels much more legally
| suspect than just deciding to no longer run photobucket and
| deleting your data outright (before, for instance, selling
| the hard-drives to recoup costs).
|
| In fact, I think the GDPR may already have fixed this for
| people protected by it? If you have photos you care about
| you might try sending a GDPR data request and see what
| happens (even if you're not covered by it, there's no harm
| in trying).
| shortstuffsushi wrote:
| This is an interesting idea, but it feels like it would be just
| about impossible to enforce. It would would also mean
| violations of terms that were added to take care of bad actors
| later wouldn't apply to earlier offenders, which would leave
| the "reason for the rule" still able to engage with the
| platform in the same manner. It seems like a bit more than a
| headache, from what I can tell.
| jtwebman wrote:
| This is why it is in your best interest to pull people from
| social media to your own stuff like a blog and email news
| letter. In the current world they can do what they want.
| 3qz wrote:
| > When I invest hours into helping to flourish a community
|
| Stop working for free.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| That is in fact a significant component to their proposal.
| gabrielhidasy wrote:
| It's not for free, we build communities to participate in
| them.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I understand the users perspective but this will definitely add
| a lot of cost because it will require maintaining different
| data processing pipelines.
|
| Suddenly, Twitter will have backward compatibility issues at
| hand. I think, "if you don't like our new ToS we will delete
| your account, here is your data have a nice day" is a fair
| approach because at no point Twitter signed SLA with their
| users.
| freeplay wrote:
| I love the idea as a user, but I can't imagine how a site would
| handle millions of users agreeing to various TOS versions.
|
| Sounds horrifying from a UX and design standpoint.
| codingdave wrote:
| Keep a copy of each version in a database. Store the version
| number in user account. Allow a link to see the version you
| agreed to, and a link to see the latest. Click OK to update
| to the latest and set that version number in your account.
|
| I don't think implementing a version control on TOS is
| particularly problematic - I think the business side of it is
| a way bigger problem - every user has agreed to different
| rules. Sounds like a nightmare for moderation, litigation,
| and decision making.
| closedloop129 wrote:
| You have that choice by using the Fediverse.
|
| The advantage of a company and its TOS is that new standards
| can be establish quickly and innovation can happen. The social
| networks of old and the Fediverse faded into the background
| because maintaining old standards becomes an obstacle to
| innovation.
| blueberrychpstx wrote:
| Or how about another different (maybe controversial take) -
|
| Archetypal TOS
|
| If you run a bank, unless you're doing something incredibly
| sketchy, your TOS will very closely resemble Bank B.
|
| If you run a social media company, unless you're doing
| something incredibly sketchy, your TOS will very closely
| resemble social media company B.
|
| ETC
|
| How about we all agree that the archetypal TOS for any given
| archetype should be readable by someone with a 9th grade
| education or below and if you deviate from those terms, you
| must clearly explain why you are so different and special.
|
| Idk, I just think we should start coming up with more clever
| solutions.
|
| This doesn't even visit the idea of completely inverting the
| social media / banking / blah blah whatever industry onto its
| head by allowing any general user complete control over data /
| finances, but obviously that would have huge benefits if we can
| tackle the usability problem for average Joe.
| mqus wrote:
| Hmm. I would also very much like to have something like this.
| But on the other hand, we already have something like that,
| it's just called law and contracts(and more specifically TOS)
| already specify what is different than in the law (like e.g.
| which court to use etc.
|
| So if there were archetypal contracts and they would be
| balanced or even slightly favor users, there would just be
| longer TOS to counter them and every company will have the
| same boilerplate again.
|
| So in that case this archetype will have to come from the
| industry or politics will have to force them to do something
| like this. This will then also have (at least) the following
| side-effects:
|
| 1. Lawyers of companies teaming up and tightening their TOS
| even more 2. Unclarified effects on the participating
| companies if parts of the common TOS get
| invalidated/overturned by a court decision 3. Since companies
| (are maybe forced to) work together, there is the risk of a
| cartel, since <agreeing on contract conditions to be the same
| across an industry> is pretty much the definition of a
| cartel.
|
| To take care of all of that, legislation needs to be first-
| class and I can't see that happening.
| taubek wrote:
| Love the idea, but I don't see how this would work in real-life
| scenario. I think it would be to much trouble.
| leothecool wrote:
| IANAL but I think you are probably subject to both versions of
| the TOS. You granted them a license to the content you posted
| under the old TOS, and those terms are still valid. Future
| content grants them a license under the new terms.
| sershe wrote:
| There are two pretty fundamental problems with this:
|
| 1) The services are free, one is not paying for a given, well-
| defined, services, like in the case where contracts are
| actually binding.
|
| 2) Even in the above case (payment+contract), a contract may
| have provisions specified on how it can be changed; and most
| do.
| montroser wrote:
| > You should be given the choice...
|
| Sure, that would be nice, but the system is not set up in a way
| such that ethics and generosity are driving factors in the
| decision making process of corporate executives. Whatever
| _should_ be is just a fantasy.
|
| > I disagree with the notion that you can stop using it, if you
| don't agree with the new TOS.
|
| What is there to disagree with? You have the choice to use your
| small bit of leverage and withhold your data and content
| contributions if you don't like the trade-offs of the deal
| being proffered.
|
| > I understand that causes some operational headaches, but it's
| just cost of running a social media company.
|
| The operation cost is nothing compared to the legal liability.
| From the point of view of the social media company the risk and
| lack of flexibility downsides far, far outweigh any possible
| good-will upside to be gained from users.
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| > What is there to disagree with? You have the choice to use
| your small bit of leverage and withhold your data and content
| contributions if you don't like the trade-offs of the deal
| being proffered.
|
| I think this would be fair if the company were forced to
| delete your data and never be able to use it again if you no
| longer agreed to the ToS.
| thealch3m1st wrote:
| This is how TOS should be updated!
| m_eiman wrote:
| This is a nice tool to see what's actually changed, useful!
|
| Also, I don't understand how it's not a legal requirement to show
| an easy to understans view of the changes made when a company
| changes the terms of your agreement with them.
|
| Almost every company sends a "we've updated the terms, yay!" with
| little to no details on what's actually been changed. A few
| provide a high-level overview of the supposed purpose of the
| changes, which I suppose is a start.
| RheingoldRiver wrote:
| diffchecker is great! I have it bookmarked (by which I mean I
| type `di` and then down arrow), and I use it all the time.
| jka wrote:
| Almost as if they could be published as markdown files in git
| repositories, with changes visible as diffs like any other
| plaintext content? :)
| abyrne10 wrote:
| Shameless plug for Changewatch [0], a work-in-progress aimed at
| making it easier to keep track of changing terms and policies.
| Feedback very welcome.
|
| [0] https://www.changewatch.co.uk
| overtonwhy wrote:
| I'd like one of those for my apartment lease
| FinnKuhn wrote:
| The updated contract my bank send me had a nearly identical
| website to the one above linked, so you could easily see the
| changes they made.
| tomcam wrote:
| What bank? I'm shopping around for a new one.
| LegitShady wrote:
| When a company changes their terms of service you can go demand
| they cancel your membership if you don't agree. But since you
| don't pay for twitter it's sort of moot.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Can you demand they return all the personal data they've
| taken under the old lisence? Because you pay them in data.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| Is this the case in the U.S.? Got any handy references to
| specific laws in this regard?
| LegitShady wrote:
| This is basic contract law but you'll likely need to review
| the specific contract in question to see if they have any
| clauses you've agreed to about cancellation.
|
| But if you have an agreement that one side unilaterally
| changes and the other side doesn't agree you probably don't
| have a contract anymore.
| m_eiman wrote:
| Sure, but if I don't know what they're changing it's hard to
| know if I want to cancel or not.
| gzer0 wrote:
| There are some paid users of Twitter, called Twitter Blue
| [1].
|
| [1] https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/twitter-blue
| zagrebian wrote:
| Interesting dark UI pattern on that website.
|
| Video: https://twitter.com/simevidas/status/1524735892841275392
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| You can click around the popup and it closes it. So does
| pressing escape.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| What is this "escape" of which you speak? Do I activate that
| by shaking my phone?
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| The popup is not present on mobile.
| jrvarela56 wrote:
| The term 'dark pattern' wrt to UX is meant to signal that the
| practice is morally dubious. In an app with a 'dark pattern',
| the designer uses affordances in the UI to nudge the user into
| taking action against their best interest (in favor of the
| company/product).
|
| In this case this was just shitty handling of the zoom or
| something app-browser related - it doesn't seem to be trying to
| trick you into anything.
| codetrotter wrote:
| That's not a dark UI pattern, that's just a poorly made modal
| window
| dariusj18 wrote:
| My window is big enough to see the whole modal, however it
| didn't show the bottom link, but when I opened it in a private
| window it did, but then when I closed and reopened my private
| browser it did not show again.
|
| It's worse than a dark pattern, they are A/B testing a dark
| pattern.
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| The text of the website overflows outside the screen on
| mobile, and the main menu is split into two lines, which
| disturbs the design.
|
| I doubt very much that this is intentional. The explanation
| that this is a bug on a site intended for desktop users with
| large screens is much more likely in my eyes, as it would be
| consistent with their other layout issues.
|
| When I use my tiny MacBook Air, I simply resize websites to
| 75%, otherwise most of them have layout problems.
| dariusj18 wrote:
| except my screen size is large and I can see the entire
| modal. Yes, there may be a screen size concern too, however
| the absence of the link at the bottom exists for some no
| matter the screen size.
| nomilk wrote:
| TOS diffs should be the default format for presenting TOS
| updates.
| frozenlettuce wrote:
| I think that this format works fine as well . Strikethrough
| outdated stuff, refer with a link "superseded by #222" and then
| follow with the current valid text.
| http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/L4591.htm#art17.
| gkoberger wrote:
| Agreed! We track ours on GitHub, and use that as the source of
| truth.
| higgins wrote:
| why do these become effective on June 10th and not immediately
| when this was published?
|
| new product/features on June 10th? ownership transfer finalized?
| selectout wrote:
| There are often regulations requiring you give users notice
| before making these changes. So beginning yesterday would
| provide 30 days notice (1 full month) allowing people time to
| react, respond, etc.
| not2b wrote:
| Looks like the only substantive differences are:
|
| You agree that you will not work around any technical limitations
| in the software provided to you as part of the Services, or
| reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except
| and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits ..
|
| and a pointer to a different doc with terms for paid services.
| nashashmi wrote:
| I see an awful lot of mention of periscope being removed. Is that
| related to the current firing of kayv
| john_moscow wrote:
| >You agree that you will not work around any technical
| limitations in the software provided to you as part of the
| Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the
| software, except and only to the extent that applicable law
| expressly permits.
|
| Translation from legalese: we will likely throttle the free
| accounts in some possibly bypassable way, and will ban you if you
| try to work around it instead of switching to a paid account.
| schappim wrote:
| I'm surprised that they haven't added the "recognition of Mars as
| a free planet" line. [1] [1]
| https://futurism.com/starlink-terms-of-service-demands-users-
| recognise-mars-free-planet/amp
| zionic wrote:
| Good! Filthy earthas don be touchin this rock hoppa
| gpm wrote:
| It's not owned by Elon yet... This change looks to be unrelated
| to the acquisition.
| senden9 wrote:
| I do not understand why the most services doesn't do diffs by
| them self.
|
| My bank for example has an "show diff" button if they change
| anything. This saves me time and build up trust because I know
| they try not to hide anything.
| fknorangesite wrote:
| > I do not understand why the most services doesn't do diffs by
| them self.
|
| Because they don't want you to notice the changes.
| yupper32 wrote:
| Or because there are like 3 people total who care, and it's
| not worth building the feature.
|
| Not everything is evil.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| So, ignoring for the moment the actual substance of the post, I
| just want to mention that this is a cool use of diffchecker,
| which I have not seen before.
| yboris wrote:
| On related note - I wish we had a diff view of all the
| laws/bills that get passed: showing who contributed what
| language.
| geekymartian wrote:
| You should check out Klaxon:
| https://github.com/themarshallproject/klaxon That way you can
| setup all the sites you want to keep an eye on.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| That is a nice tool !!!!.
| hawski wrote:
| On the tool side: there must be some services that do web
| scrapping and diffing periodically. Of course with additional
| filtering like diff only content from specified selector,
| ignore this, ignore that. Can someone recommend anything like
| that? Bonus points if it's just a thing one can run locally.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| It's a hosted service, but Wachete has been watching some
| pages for me for years. For local, with more control, try
| scripting Selenium or Phantomjs with Python.
| bspammer wrote:
| Not 100% what you're asking for but git scraping is a pretty
| cool technique. The idea is you set up a bot to scrape the
| data and commit to a git repository periodically. This can be
| done completely for free with no maintenance using GitHub
| Actions, for example.
|
| https://simonwillison.net/2020/Oct/9/git-scraping/
| muglug wrote:
| I use diffchecker.com almost daily for debugging outputs. Great
| simple UI
| busymom0 wrote:
| On windows, Notepad++ worked amazingly well when I was doing
| a lot of debugging of server logs at my old job.
| judge2020 wrote:
| My only disdain for it is that it's online and stores the
| content of the diff. I'm a big fan of webapps that store
| input data in the URL instead, although storing the content
| encrypted with the url hash being the encryption key (like
| Firefox Send) would also be better.
| HHad3 wrote:
| tl;dr this adds a clause to forbid reserve engineering and
| bypassing "technical limitations"
|
| > You agree that you will not work around any technical
| limitations in the software provided to you as part of the
| Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the
| software, except and only to the extent that applicable law
| expressly permits.
| taubek wrote:
| I wonder what does this exactly mean. Does this mean that you
| are not allowed to figure out how some feature exactly work or
| is it just to forbid you from trying to manipulate algorithms
| (and exploit them)?
| jackosdev wrote:
| Doesn't mean anything, just someone filling in the hours,
| it'd be faster and more effective to build from scratch,
| anyone who could reverse Twitter already knows how to make a
| better clone. The bigger a company gets the more they hire
| people who work on pretend problems like this.
| dangerface wrote:
| They are probably trying to stop people from blocking adverts
| or in my case removing the annoying popup that wants you to
| login when you use a vpn.
| progbits wrote:
| Or banning things like Nitter which bypasses the technical
| limitation of Twitter's UI being dogshit?
| zgrealist wrote:
| That would be in line with Musk/Tesla's whimsical
| protectiveness of Tesla software. I expect more free speech
| on Twitter but draconian lockdowns of the IP/API's, push
| for real names and ramped up data mining of the human
| cattle.
| capableweb wrote:
| If I was in court over that, I'd argue the UI being dogshit
| is because of the management of the product teams, not
| because of the engineering department/technical
| limitations/technical merit (or lack of thereof).
| car_analogy wrote:
| This is equivalent to a newspaper forbidding you from clipping
| out the articles, or a car manufacturer forbidding you from
| looking under the hood.
|
| It's preposterous that we allow any kind of legitimacy to
| 'contracts' such as these, that seek to at once control us and
| keep us ignorant in relation to items and services that fill
| our homes.
|
| But instead of explicitly forbidding such clauses, we're
| actually writing them into law with anti-circumvention and
| reverse-engineering (i.e. examining how stuff works)
| restrictions. It's obscene.
| indigochill wrote:
| Good news! There's a Twitter alternative that's open source
| and practically requires you to look under the hood:
| Mastodon.
|
| In the general case I agree with your sentiment and this is
| why I believe open source and self hosted alternatives are
| important, because they are the escape hatch from all the
| problems inherent in corporate platforms.
| darkerside wrote:
| The word you are looking for is analogous, not equivalent.
| car_analogy wrote:
| No, equivalent. It may relate to a different, more
| intangible object (website vs. car), but it strips away the
| same rights.
| [deleted]
| willis936 wrote:
| Any illegal clause of a contract can't be enforced. However,
| it can be litigated and I don't want to be litigated by a
| tech company.
|
| That's the real sword of damocles: not the illegal contracts
| but of the combination of concentrated wealth and its ability
| to selectively enforce its own rules.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| As an end user, let them come. Suing me over some illegal
| clause on an illegible contract with all of the evidence of
| not being open to evaluation before I entered it is a sure
| losing proposition.
|
| But if I was thinking about buying something from them as a
| company, I would take that line very seriously.
| noir_lord wrote:
| > It's preposterous that we allow any kind of legitimacy to
| 'contracts' such as these
|
| Big chunk of US GDP depends on IP, that IP is
| disproportionately in the hands of big corporations, big
| corporations can legally bribe, sorry lobby US politicians,
| we get anti-consumer legislation exported world-wide as a
| result.
| pbasista wrote:
| > not work around any technical limitations ... reverse
| engineer, decompile or disassemble the software
|
| If I understand correctly, Twitter users and whoever else who
| agrees with these ToS surrenders their right to explore how
| Twitter software works, reverse engineer it, etc. ... "except
| and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits".
|
| While all the other people who are not in any contractual
| relationship with Twitter are free to do all these things.
|
| It is interesting to see that people who use services like
| Twitter actually have _less_ rights in some areas than other
| people who are not using these services.
|
| Also, I would be curious about what this change means to
| services like nitter.net which offer a custom web interface for
| Twitter service. Would they be forced to do their reverse
| engineering without a Twitter account?
| lbotos wrote:
| I thought often the clause is "by accessing x content you are
| agreeing to our terms of service"? I may be wrong, but I
| can't figure out a a way that you could reverse engineer
| twitter's software without _someone_ breaking that ToS.
| pbasista wrote:
| As long as Twitter's API is publicly accessible, I cannot
| imagine how making an HTTP request to it would constitute
| an implicit agreement to any ToS.
| greggsy wrote:
| If you scroll further down, they just moved those bits around.
|
| The main difference seems to be a name change from Twitter
| International "Company" to "Unlimited", and removed references
| to super hearts and some other feature I've never used or had
| an interest in.
| ihuman wrote:
| The super hearts, coins, and stars were part of Periscope
| Retr0id wrote:
| I don't see any references to reverse engineering in the
| previous version.
| jgerrish wrote:
| I wonder if diff is considered a "reverse engineering tool"
|
| I wonder if User-Agent "spoofing" is a "work around".
|
| That's what they do, you focus on one level, the magicians use
| misdirection.
|
| "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own
| reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously,
| as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities,
| which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out."
|
| Slow golf clap.
|
| This is not a criticism of Twitter. There are issues with these
| platforms and different values, but social media gives untold
| millions a voice, and the alternative is a monopoly.
| [deleted]
| bbrks wrote:
| Does that vague "bypassing 'technical limitations'" clause also
| cover tweeting messages more than 250 characters by
| screenshotting your notes app I wonder?
| omoikane wrote:
| I thought this question was meant as a joke, but after seeing
| the long chain of replies I am not so sure.
|
| (I think it would be silly if this "technical limitations"
| clause is intended to ban all communications longer than 280
| characters, unless they also intend to ban threads of posts
| summing up to more than 280 characters)
| coldpie wrote:
| Obviously not, no.
| dtx1 wrote:
| What makes it obviously so?
| jolux wrote:
| What's more likely here: that Twitter intends to ban
| people for posting screenshots of text, or that this
| clause doesn't apply to that?
| coldpie wrote:
| Simple logic? Twitter is not going to consider posting
| images of text to be a violation of their TOS. Duh.
| oauea wrote:
| Obviously they do. To quote their TOS:
|
| > You agree that you will not work around any technical
| limitations in the software provided to you as part of
| the Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or
| disassemble the software, except and only to the extent
| that applicable law expressly permits.
|
| Go to twitter right now and try to post a message
| containing 300 characters. You can't do it. It is a
| technical limitation. Now make a screenshot of that text
| and post it. You just worked around a technical
| limitation and are now in blatant violation of their TOS.
| coldpie wrote:
| oauea wrote:
| Have you considered reading the TOS instead of insulting
| me?
| coldpie wrote:
| Yes, obviously I have read it. The technical limitations
| are that you can post 250 characters and up to four
| images. There are no technical limitations being violated
| by posting an image containing more than 250 characters.
| People use images all the time to communicate longer text
| portions in a single post. Do you really think Twitter's
| intent by saying users may not work around technical
| limitations is to clamp down on this extremely common
| behavior?
| oauea wrote:
| I'm not talking about their intent, I'm not a mind
| reader, I'm talking about their published TOS.
| jolux wrote:
| Posting images of text is not posting text. It is posting
| images. Posting an image of a dog is posting an image,
| not posting a dog. (Ceci n'est pas un pipe) If you posted
| an image that triggered an injection bug in their backend
| and filled a tweet with more than 280 characters, that
| would be circumvention. But there is no technical
| limitation preventing people from posting images of text,
| or dogs.
|
| Similarly, the alt text box allowing up to 1000
| characters is not a circumvention of tweets only allowing
| 280 characters. You are allowed to write up to 1000
| characters of alt text. You are allowed to post images.
| coldpie wrote:
| Yes, I regret putting those last two sentences in there.
| Please ignore them and just respond to the first two:
|
| > The technical limitations are that you can post 250
| characters and up to four images. There are no technical
| limitations being violated by posting an image containing
| more than 250 characters.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "People use images all the time to communicate longer
| text portions in a single post. "
|
| People also post porn, or use bots, both are against TOS.
|
| So its not obvious or clrar, and they interpret their own
| TOS however it suits them every day. Its intentionally
| vague
| wolf550e wrote:
| I know of one case of Twitter doing client side validation [1].
| Maybe there are more?
|
| 1 - https://github.com/qntm/base2048#note
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-12 23:01 UTC)