Comment by medler

We need to revise the law around terms of service, we are allowing companies to impose all kinds of monopolistic, anti competitive, user hostile, privacy invasion, and other measures against the public interest simply by burying provision in a wall of text they know no one will understand even if they read it.

> if X has a public API and Nitter is using it

Public as in being visible to all is not the same as public as in allowing use by all. You appear to be conflating the former definition with the latter. For example, my front door is visible to all, but a person isn't allowed to walk into my house without permission.

> In other words, if X has a public API and Nitter is using it, then neither Nitter themselves nor the Nitter users have to agree to any terms of service in order to do so.

That's not true. Publicly available source code with licenses dispute your claim.

> Terms of service have no legal binding unless both parties agree to them.

Even if both parties agree to them, are there any legal consequences for breaking the terms of service?

Isn't it the entire premise of Nitter and the other scrapers, to use accounts in order to access the API, access non-public posts, and proxy them to the public?

If Nitter is creating accounts for access then it doesn't matter whether they use the API or the web client (which is also API). Because creating an account binds you to the Terms of Use. It's not rocket science.

Also, to further cement this comment's unpopularity: it's unconscionable and appalling that this Nitter team, these cheats and thieves, that they are now begging for money and attorneys to bail them out of this legal grave they've dug for themselves. I sincerely hope that they are dragged in court, that they lose, and that they are severely financially damaged by trying to fight this stupid battle.

There is no reason to bypass authentication just because you hate X or Musk or you think it's somehow unjust that people can't access shit without simply signing up and agreeing to contract terms. Most sane idiots would simply shut down, take their "L" and do something productive. Doubling down and begging for legal fee donations is brazen and shameless and, honestly, insane.

> Terms of service have no legal binding unless both parties agree to them.

Companies are perfectly entitled to tell people they aren't allowed to use their services anymore. That's what the C&D was. It's perfectly legal to say "here's an API anyone can use, except you, Anish Kapoor."

It's like if Reddit bans you, you aren't entitled to use the site after they've told you you're banned. Even if you can find a technical means around the ban, it's still trespass.

"Haha I used the API which I KNOW is governed by the ToS but I didn't agree to it"

Judge: "do you agree to the terms?"

"No"

Judge: "then you can't use the API"

"But look at all the downvotes this is getting! You're wrong Mr. Judge!"

There are aspects of copyright and CFAA that could, hypothetically, be brought to bear on this as well.

IANAL, but most of the copyrights are held by the X users, X having sublicensed it. It is unlikely that X users would band together and sue Nitter, and X doesn't really have the standing for takedowns or lawsuits on those grounds.

IIUC, nitter is acting as a proxy-gateway and using authorized user accounts to do it through the API. It's essentially opening up access for unauthenticated, unauthorized persons, to content that they would not otherwise be able to access. Imagine if I established a service that granted authenticated proxy access to Bill Gates' online banking app. Or a service that proxies GitHub by means of a very prominent user account, that has commit access to significant repos in the public supply chain.

I believe that even HN commenters could see the legal flaws in such services; no matter how much they covet Bill Gates' money. nitter and friends are essentially doing the same crimes, on a read-only, low-grade low-stakes sort of way, but the victims are a very high-profile platform plus all their users. We do not appreciate these hijinks.

Violating a contract is illegal. It's just not necessarily a crime.

That determination is rooted in contract law.