[nobodyandproud]

I feel like two groups are talking over each other.

One is saying Twitter shouldn’t have done this and should be called out for breaking a promise.

The other group mostly agrees, but is pointing out that problem was giving Twitter so much control over one’s own content in the first place.

I agree with this: Banking on what’s nothing more than a handshake is a bad call.

Having to go to the court of public opinion is largely a failure, not the recourse of choice.

The commercial internet of today works this way, and it’s increasingly becoming fragile for it.

[newswasboring]

> I agree with this: Banking on what’s nothing more than a handshake is a bad call.

But shouldn't we be striving for a world where it isn't a bad call? Reputation used to mean something, I have read about it in old books. That was back when choice was a thing. Digg got destroyed in a matter of weeks because they did something users didn't like. Now Facebook is openly contributing to destroying democracy and all they get is one bad financial year. These things are way too big and wield way too much power.

And, with all due and undue respect, statements like yours are part of the problem. I don't know what your intent was, but you come off as defending twitter on this as there was no written contract. While everyone is equal under codified law, we shouldn't forget some people have more influence than others over what gets codified.

[nobodyandproud]

> But shouldn't we be striving for a world where it isn't a bad call? Reputation used to mean something,

Reputation isn’t proof. It also carries no context.

If the service is very meaningful to you, then why wouldn’t you want a legal contract?

> I don't know what your intent was, but you come off as defending twitter on this as there was no written contract. While everyone is equal under codified law, we shouldn't forget some people have more influence than others over what gets codified.

Case and point of reputation. You assume I’m defending Twitter, because you can’t imagine that I can agree that it’s a scummy move while also pointing out that it’s bad practice to rely on a company’s word.

As for my intent?

I’m annoyed, dealing with like-minded individuals and engineers.

Having to teach engineers that coding and behavioral contracts get broken, and so code must be written defensively; in a world where pushing out features and adoption is “impact” is quite the uphill battle.

It just took a couple of decades for businesses to realize that “free” has some severe hidden costs.

And appealing on social media hoping to get attention, in a world where there’s too much information and noise?

I’m flabbergasted.