[hda2]

> Twitter is under no obligation to retain this kind of stuff on your behalf.

They declared something worked one way then silently changed how that thing works without properly announcing the change first and giving people enough time to adapt. Would you still be willing to make these excuses if your emails provider decided to do the same thing?

Even if it's their system, there's a limit where people would rightfully start to object.

[eddieroger]

If my email provider started doing something I don't like, shame on me for not saving a copy of my mail. Unless I'm explicitly paying them to keep a copy, which I'm pretty sure nobody using Twitter is doing, then they get to set the rules. And if I don't like the rules, I don't have to use the system, just like I wouldn't use a mail provider that deleted my mail without my action.

[bennyp101]

An email provider (which you most likely pay for - and don't publish on a website) is very different to a social media site (that you don't pay for and want it out in the public)

It's a free service that they provide - why can they not change how their system works when they want? People can object whenever they want - but it doesn't change the fact that they don't have any 'rights' to show someone elses content via a 3rd party on their website.

Maybe if you paid to embed tweets? Sure ok, they changed the contract - so deal with that.

Is it a bit annoying if you use it? Probably. Is it bad that the docs are out of date? Ok.

Twitter doesn't have any responsibility to you as someone who wants to quote someone else via their platform.

[fphhotchips]

I disagree. Twitter doesn't own that content. Someone posting the Twitter JS on their website to allow Twitter to format the tweet to Twitter's brand standards and allow a link to drive traffic back to Twitter is a favour that they're doing Twitter. They should respect that favour by not changing the contract unilaterally.

[bennyp101]

Yea, I don't think people are embedding tweets on their sites to do Twitter a favour ... it's because they want to reference something and part of the TOS says to use it.

[fphhotchips]

The TOS on quoting someone? You're saying that if I want to quote something someone says on Twitter in my book or in a newspaper, I have to follow their TOS and style it their way? No, I think not. Applying Twitter's styling to quotes is a nicety. It's nice for the blogger that it looks good on a blog and it's nice for Twitter that they get a link back and their branding guidelines get followed, but there's no way Twitter is going to be able to enforce their TOS on quoting something that someone else said just because it was said on their platform.

[theelous3]

This is hilariously disingenuous.

You rightly point out the ridiculous claim, noting people don't use embeds as a favour to twitter - and then make the ten times more ridiculous claim that people are using embeds because of the TOS.

At least try and hide the fact you're being bad faith if you're going to engage like this.

[LadyCailin]

But, you as the website operator don’t own that content either? Certainly I have some level of expectation that if I delete something, it may very well actually be gone, right? And further, that Twitter taking steps to do exactly that in places they control is reasonable?

[fphhotchips]

> Certainly I have some level of expectation that if I delete something, it may very well actually be gone, right?

Really? For me this is like saying that just because you stop actively publishing a book, people can never quote it again. That's clearly not true, right?

Edit: or because I didn't distribute recordings of a speech I made, newspapers can't quote me

[LadyCailin]

But I am not, nor do I aspire to be, a public figure. For notable people, and most certainly politicians, I might tend to agree with you, but not for the general case.

[fphhotchips]

People who aren't public figures get quoted in print all the time. The only way to not be quoted is to never say anything.

[montroser]

Unfortunately, it doesn't really matter if you disagree. They own the platform, and they can operate it how they please. There's no "changing of the contract" here. Their TOS certainly don't guarantee anything at all in exchange for website owners embedding tweets in this way. Any theoretical moral argument is kind of irrelevant.

[medler]

You, and many in these comments, seem to be conflating twitter’s legal rights with their informal social obligations. No one is saying this is illegal behavior by Twitter. Some are saying it’s very annoying of them to go back on their established policies and break thousands of websites.

[montroser]

I totally agree it's annoying, and at odds with what we would hope for their social obligations. So sure, shame on them.

But also, we could not actually expect anything different. The capitalist/corporate environment in which we operate will systematically compel these companies to choose profits over social obligations. They are accountable to their customers (advertisers), and so whatever moral transgressions we people on the street may perceive -- they don't really play into Twitter's decision-making...

[theelous3]

> But also, we could not actually expect anything different. The capitalist/corporate environment in which we operate will systematically compel these companies to choose profits over social obligations.

This is a very poor argument. It does not necessarily follow that profit seeking results in this outcome, in fact it could easily be the opposite case, and so your assertion has no footing.

[simonw]

If I embed your JavaScript on my page I am giving you a HUGE amount of my trust. You should treat that as sacred.

[montroser]

But why would you trust a corporation that owes you nothing?

[folkrav]

There's always some level of implicit trust the second you decide to use any platform.

[bennyp101]

Sure, and you would have done a risk assessment based on that.

I'm not sure why I (as a 3rd party social media platform) would treat your trust as sacred?

[nicce]

I would argue that statistically the most people don’t pay for their email provider with money. In that term not a very strong argument.

[bennyp101]

The "Would you still be willing to make these excuses if your emails provider decided to do the same thing?" statement I was replying to was a bit weak as weak :)

But in the case of not paying for your email, then that is also on you to acknowledge there is a set of terms, and you can adhere or not. I certainly wouldn't expect a free service to owe me anything.

[renewiltord]

Right. And I don’t have a responsibility to not kick up a fuss. So I’m going to kick up a fuss and hopefully people will want to use their APIs and SDKs a teensy bit less.