Twitter Demands Academics Who Won’t Pay $42k/Month Delete Any Twitter Data They Currently Have

from the so-very-transparent dept

Elon Musk has insisted that “transparency is the key to trust” in rebuilding Twitter in his image. He says it all the time. But, of course, under Musk, Twitter has been significantly less transparent, choosing to skip its transparency reports, and generally close itself off. But one of the key methods for transparency on Twitter has long been its willingness to allow academic researchers to access its API and do research around Twitter and its users.

This is how, for example, we were able to learn that (contrary to widespread belief), Twitter’s moderation efforts actually favored conservatives (rather than suppressed them), and that the “bias” in its moderation efforts was against misinformation, not any political ideology.

Of course, in Musk’s desperate efforts to poke the bird he saddled with massive debt until it makes money, means that he turned off nearly everyone’s access to Twitter’s API (including ours) and demanded a minimum $42,000 per month from academics. That’s half a million dollars a year. For access to one company’s data. This is… not the kind of money that academic institutions have to.

The whole thing seems deliberately designed to cut academics off from Twitter’s data and to be as opaque as possible, rather than transparent.

As if to put an exclamation point on that thinking, the latest is that Twitter is telling academic institutions that haven’t paid (i.e., basically all of them that used to use Twitter’s data for research) that they are required to delete all the data they collected in the past by the end of this month.

But in recent weeks, the company has been contacting researchers, asking them to pay $42,000 a month to access 0.3% of all the tweets posted to the platform – something researchers have previously said is totally unaffordable. Previous contracts for access to the data were set as low as a couple of hundred dollars a month.

An email, seen by the i, says researchers who don’t sign the new contract “will need to expunge all Twitter data stored and cached in your systems”. Researchers will be required to post screenshots “that showcase evidence of removal”. They have been given 30 days after their agreement expires to complete the process.

Now, in talking to people (both former Twitter employees and academic researchers) about this, they do say that the Twitter API contract has long had a clause regarding data deletion. But also, that it has never been used in this manner (only in cases where there were claims of misuse of the data), and that the demand to prove the data has been deleted is particularly egregious and petty.

But, really, it just highlights how little Elon is willing to have outside experts look into the details of how Twitter is working. It’s the opposite of transparency.

And, thus, Elon himself is effectively telling you that you should never trust Twitter.

On top of that, it seems particularly ironic that Twitter is demanding proof of deletion the very same week that Twitter itself began accidentally putting back tweets that Twitter had told people had been deleted. So Twitter is now being less transparent, demanding proof of deletion, at the very same time that it can’t delete things it promised it had deleted.

Super trustworthy site there.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Twitter Demands Academics Who Won’t Pay $42k/Month Delete Any Twitter Data They Currently Have”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
46 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

This is… not the kind of money that academic institutions have access to.

I am sadly aware of the total shitshow that is American higher education, and even the massive fees to study in a university don’t make money, especially when you have to pay faculty (or underpay them).

Mike probably has access to more information than I do, but he’s not wrong.

And if you’re laughing at universities, I’ve got to ask one question: Why do you hate academia, one of the pillars of democracy, so much?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Those topline numbers are meaningless. Nearly all that money is earmarked by their donors, so either you need an alumni gift specifically to research social media (or maybe supporting social studies projects generally) or a no-strings-attached gift. Inevitably the larger donors want their names on something shiny so most of the money goes into buildings, schools, financial aid, chairs, and speaker series.

Second, universities pay little to none of professors’ research budgets. In science you’re expected to pull in a nice NSF or NIH grant and that pays everything from PhD student tuition and stipends to your solvent stock, or else you’re researching out your own pocket. In social studies a donor paid for your chair but you pay your own research budget, and the big grants will get you a hefty $300 (yes three hundred dollars) and maybe a round trip plane ticket if it’s foreign. How that’s supposed to pay for $42k a month is trivial to answer: it doesn’t. You could hire 3 full professors for that price, and the department has maybe 10 of them to begin with.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Total says:

Re: Re:

universities pay little to none of professors’ research budgets.

Your defense of universities is that they force researchers to basically fund themselves in return for lab space and the name? And the side effect of this capitalism is a lovely semi-feudalism where graduate students and recent Ph.Ds do lots of the actual work while getting paid peanuts? Are you defending them or indicting them?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

1st anon here. I can tell you’re thinking about this because you correctly caught that I’m not really defending the universities at all. More specifically I’m indicting the university administration, which nowadays run like businesses for profit and talk a big game about their academic inquiry but will absolutely throw the faculty and students (the ones actually doing the inquiry) under the bus for a buck. It’s why adjunct hell is a thing and we’re seeing less and less tenure track offers (say what you will about tenure but it’s not terrible for maximizing freedom of inquiry compared to having the board/admin/donors decide your fate instead).

My point was that you’re conflating the universities at large with the academics themselves, and endowments, much as I’d like otherwise, are not piggy banks for academic research. You want to sustain that money indefinitely, so you have to have a plan for it to last a century in the best case, and even then most of that money ends up going to university needs, not academic needs.

The universities don’t care about what Twitter is doing. The academics do, but it’s the universities who have all that money you mentioned in your OP.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I mean, you came to this gunfight with a knife, making it clear with your comment you have no idea how academia works if you think researchers can just ask the university for more. So I provided you a pistol so to speak, so you’d have a chance. It’s not my problem you’re shooting your own face with it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

No, if you have to break down the components of universities for the other person to understand how it works, that suggests that the person you are explaining this to doesn’t even understand the basics of what they’re even talking about.

Here’s the thing: Like it or not, universities provide almost no funding for research, and it doesn’t correlate with the amount needed for the research or to anything else, really, because it’s set in stone. The vast majority of the funding for research done at universities comes instead from outside sources, like federal research grants or funding from private organizations external to the university. It’s really that simple.

Additionally, much of the universities funding is earmarked, meaning it can only be spent on specific things; those funds are virtually never earmarked for funding research, so the university could not use those funds for research even if it wanted to (which it generally does not, unfortunately).

Does this make universities look bad? Absolutely! However, we aren’t talking about how things should work; we’re talking about how they actually work.

The fact of the matter is that universities aren’t going to spend even a single cent per year for its researchers to have access to Twitter’s data, so the amount of funding universities have is irrelevant. That money has to come from individual research teams, and they simply do not have the money to pay what Elon is asking for. The university certainly isn’t going to give it to them. Whether we like it or not, that is just how it is.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anathema Device (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Are you defending them or indicting them?

They’re describing them.

Also the usual terms of grants for PhD students and similar won’t even cover things like bench fees. There’s no fucking way they are going to allow $42,000 a month to be shovelled into Musk’s open maw.

discussitlive (profile) says:

Legal authority?

As regular users are aware, I’m not an attorney, I don’t pretend to be an attorney, and as long as an attoreny doesn’t computer we’ll get along fine.

However, I was just wondering – what theory does Musk think this is legal under?

Not copyright, as there are exceptions to that for academic study for one, and for another, copyright is only operative on republishing the work, not on the analysis of that work from my possibly flawed understanding of copyright.

Trademark wouldn’t stand because even a moron in a hurry would have to strain to confuse a university with Twitter, and there just doesn’t seem to be a way to stretch patent law to cover this. I suppose contract law if they obtained the data via a contract rather than use the API, wget or curl.

So, in the event they don’t have even a simpleton around to create a simple bash script:
—8< cut here >8—
#!/bin/bash
#Musk self pleasuring
dataset=1,438,404,006
echo “*********** DANGER DANGER DANGER ***********”
echo “* You have authorized mass delete and purge on dataset: *”
echo “TWITTER DATA comprizing ${dataset} records!”
echo “*********** DANGER DANGER DANGER ***********”

read -p “Proceed? (yes/N): ” askme

echo “*********** DANGER DANGER DANGER ***********”
echo “* ONE LAST TIME: *”
echo “*********** DANGER DANGER DANGER ***********”

read -p “Proceed? (yes/N): ” askme

echo “Purge complete: Dataset TWITTER now contains 0 records.”
—8< cut here >8—
Obviously I’m joking. I would never assist anyone to violate the law.
Unless it was funny as hell, anyway. Remind me to tell you what we did with the bronze cannon statue in high school.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

what theory does Musk think this is legal under?

Freedom of speech, perhaps. A non-governmental entity can generally demand anything from anyone.

As to why the recipients might be required to obey, I guess that would be contract law: “the Twitter API contract has long had a clause regarding data deletion”. It’s not clear what that clause is, or whether anything requires them to prove their “innocence” (that is, to show they deleted it, rather than Twitter having to show they didn’t). But I think it’s likely that a failure to delete would be a breach of contract.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Is it really breach of contract if they already terminated the contract by not paying $42k/mo?

It depends on the contract, but it sure could be. Contracts usually have termination provisions. If you quit a job, for example, you’d likely be required to hand back any data (like customer and supplier names and contact details) and equipment from that job. It doesn’t matter that you’ve terminated the contract.

It’s not stated what the penalty could be here, but many online service contracts have quite onerous provisions. For example, they may require one to indemnify the company, without any cap. That’d mean it Twitter got sued for a researcher having the data, the researcher would have to pay Twitter’s legal costs and penalties, even if that’s like a 20-million-euro GDPR fine. That’s what agreements tend to say, anyway. It’s unlikely a court would force an individual to pay that; and if it’s just Twitter getting pissy without any real damages, I doubt they’d win much of anything.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anathema Device (profile) says:

Re:

Musk’s destruction of Twitter will be a cautionary tale in business school textbooks

I suspect it won’t because it’s so obviously deliberate – and destroying profitable businesses is already an established practice among vulture capitalists.

When President Ivanka is inaugurated by Saudi fiat, Musk will be rolling around on his lake of oil bucks, laughing at his own pathetic jokes, while a retinue of foot lickers feed him peeled grapes and stage executions of selected journalists and critic at suppertime for his entertainment. That is the reward he’s going to earn for destroying Twitter.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Benjamin Jay Barber says:

Its okay when Reddit does it?

No mention of Reddit doing the same thing.

But really, the problem for both platforms is the bot accounts, that can be used to manipulate the platform, with AI generated content.

That sort of platform manipulation at scale is hard without some form of access an API / scraper, to manage command and control of the bots.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

No mention of Reddit doing the same thing.

Last I checked, Reddit wasn’t being run by a right-wing egomaniac with the impulse control of a stick of lit dynamite who refused to pay rent on his offices.

Maybe people would actually notice what Reddit does, if Musk wasn’t busily taking up all the fucking oxygen in the room.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...