[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.