Twitter goes full douchebag

Twitter is to block most third-party apps, which don't comply with their strict rules on access.

We've written, at length, on Twitter's attempts to safeguard the profitability of its network against all-comers, so this shouldn't come as any surprise: the company has confirmed that, from March 2013, they will begin enforcing a de facto ban on third-party apps.

The ban is revealed in two passages in a post to developers by Twitter's director of consumer content, Michael Sippey. The first tells developers that the company's "display guidelines" will become "display requirements", while the second explains that from now on, any service with more than one million users will need special permission from Twitter to continue growing.

The display requirements are an incredibly strict set of requirements which not only hit their intended target, third-party consumer clients like Tweetbot, Econfon or Ubersocial, but also a huge number of unintended ones – Jason Kottke says that his aggregation site Stellar meets just four of the 16 requirements, while Marco Arment, developer of the popular Instapaper reading app, thinks that his "liked by friends" feature will have to be pulled, or at least rewritten, to comply.

Other rules look likely to hit services like Flipboard (which breaks 5.a., "tweets that are grouped together into a timeline should not be rendered with non-Twitter content. e.g. comments, updates from other networks") and Storify and Favstar (which break 3.b., "no other social or 3rd party actions may be attached to a Tweet"). Or they would, had Twitter not clarified that actually, those latter two are the "good" apps. Ryan Sarver, the company's director of platform, tweeted that they are what they want in the ecosystem.

This ought to be good news - two of the most useful third party apps are safe - but in fact, it's even more upsetting. It shows that, from the off, Twitter's rules all contain an implicit "...but you can ignore these if we like you." If that is the case, it's not hard to imagine that they also contain an implicit "...and no matter how well you follow these, if we don't like you, you're off the service." Everything using the network does so at the capricious whim of its overlords.

The million user limit is even more indiscriminately applied. Any application, no matter what it does or how well it complies with the published rules, needs to "work with [Twitter] directly" to get more users than that. It is, essentially, a rule that gives the company carte blanch to pick and choose whether any company getting too big can be allowed to grow.

Most companies try to keep customers by keeping customers happy. Twitter is clear in its intentions: it wants to keep customers by making it extraordinarily difficult for them to leave. It is holding its network hostage; you can go, but you can't take your friends with you.

In July, when Twitter first acted on their intentions to block clients which "mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter consumer client experience" I wrote that:

That is bad enough for the company, but up to now, the users of those apps are a minority on the service. The vast majority of twitterers use the website itself, or one of the official clients on mobile devices.

But with these changes, Twitter hasn't just hit the apps used by a small (nerdy) minority of users. There are going to be very few Twitter users who aren't affected in some way or another by this attempt to turn the site into a Facebook-style walled garden.

Ben Brooks, author of the Brooks Review, sums up the news:

We like to make analogies to Apple in tech blogging circles, so here goes: this is the moment in Twitter’s life where they kicked Steve Jobs out of the company and told Sculley to run it.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Show Hide image

“Socialism with an iPad” isn't as ludicrous as it sounds

Technology is changing the labour market faster than ever before. John McDonnell argues that it's the state's responsibility to make sure the outcome is fair for everyone. 

The speech shadow chancellor John McDonnell gave at Imperial College earlier today started fine. As my colleague George Eaton points out, McDonnell was valiantly attempting to reframe the economic debate – to show how investment, especially in technology research and infrastructure, could reinvigorate the economy in ways austerity can’t. 

But then he got to the last line. “It’s socialism,” he summed up, “but socialism with an iPad.”

The clunky slogan sailed a thousand The Thick of it references (Bat People and App Britain featured prominently), and its use as a soundbite across the media made McDonnell’s argument look out-of-touch and embarrassing. But in the context of his argument, the line isn’t as nonsensical as it sounds.

Buried in the speech were a number of important arguments about how we let technological advancement come about. It’s lazy to assume that technology is inherently democratic, and will necessarily bring about a fairer society – as things stand, it’s deepy embedded in capitalism. But it's also changing the labour market faster than ever before: automation and robotics will soon mean that most tasks can be carried out  by machine, making those who control those machines vastly more powerful than those who don’t. 

In his speech, McDonnell pointed out that automation will replace low-paid workers first:

Technological advance is forcing the pace of change. Bank of England research suggests that 15 million jobs could be at risk of automation over the next decade or so. And those most at risk from automation are the lowest-paid.

He added that technological advances, and the changes they’ll make to the labour market, must be managed by the state so that workers don't lose out. Technology contributes to the wealth gap, and could well make it worse, unless, as McDonnell says, the government “understands and accepts the strategic role it has to play in our new economy”. This sounds woolly, but it's an important point - Tory policy on issues like tax or the the Transatlantic Trade Partnership (TTIP) has been remarkably hands-off in ceding power to large corporations. 

McDonnell implied that a large and involved state is crucial in a globalised, technological world, to ensure that workers' rights don't fall through the cracks and inequalities don't widen. A large welfare state would help cushion workers in a changing economy -  tax credits, as McDonnell explained earlier, can help make up for low wages in small, start-up businesses. 

Corporations have a poor record of improving working life and helping out those unable to work, or whose skills become redundant. These safeguards will become ever-more important as technology changes the labour market forever. And it’s here, McDonnell argued, that a bit of socialism will be needed. Even if it's carrying an iPad. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.