Comments on: Twitter’s dilemma: We own our tweets, but it still wants to control them

By: Levander

Levander — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:20:47 +0000

The argument in the article makes no sense. Just because the user owns his tweets does not mean Twitter has to provide the means for the user to display the tweets in whatever way he wishes.

The user can decide to or to not put his tweets that he owns on Twitter. If he does put them on Twitter, I do not see at all how that means Twitter has to make sure the tweets can be displayed in a hundred different ways that they make no money on.

By: Jennie Walker

Jennie Walker — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:05:00 +0000

Humm. sounds like profit sharing is in order here.

By: Gregg

Gregg — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:54:06 +0000

They may claim that we own our tweets, but we can’t actually have them – there is no liberation option, to download all [your] tweets/graph and do whatever you want with them. Until they provide that, just like Google did, they can’t claim we own anything.

By: John Bethune

John Bethune — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 22:08:29 +0000

Clearly, Twitter wants to become more like a traditional publisher than a common carrier. That doesn’t mean, though, that they can’t continue to claim that the users own their content. Like many publishers, Twitter could just say it owns a single right to that content–i.e., to publish it on its network.

All other uses the author would control. But that one use–how the content appears on Twitter–the author would have no right to.

In traditional publishing, most authors are willing to make that deal. They can freely and effectively use their content elsewhere. In the Twitter version of publishing, though, there isn’t much value to the content (generally) outside of Twitter.

I wonder, then, if owning your Twitter content really means much. Under the new Twitter approach, technically I own my content. But because Twitter owns the only valuable right to it, they in effect own the content entirely.

By: Greg Golebiewski

Greg Golebiewski — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:36:39 +0000

An example of Steward Brand’s classic “information wants to be free, and it wants to be expensive” scenario?

Even more ironic, though, is that by restricting its API policies, Twitter killed also a few amazing new technologies that could possibly provide a solution for the natural tension between open and profitable. See here, for example: http://bit.ly/So6c2w

By: Chris McCoy

Chris McCoy — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:57:13 +0000

Thanks for raising the issue, Mathew. You’re doing all of us a favor.

Twitter won’t be able to have their cake and eat it too.

I’m confident of that.

Ultimately, by closing off distribution they’re forcing the conversation to stay inside Twitter.

As a result, more niche conversational networks will emerge and eventually some of these will become primary source of content creation for the very broadcast actors Twitter is building/stealing from.

By: Slayerwulfe

Slayerwulfe — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:09:18 +0000

Policy changes at Twitter , is another side to the problem, that I cannot block anyone from viewing what I say. I’ve gone totally public and I agree to it the moment I post. Too grey for me understand Twitters responsibilities , or my responsibilities to my self, except that I own them.

By: Slayerwulfe

Slayerwulfe — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:55:50 +0000

if a person wants their tweets ,or another persons then record them. I record them and i would never think not to. If I had the means I could record all of it.
should I be forced to surrender all or any of my personally collected tweets ?