Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NY Times Asks Twitter To Shut Down Retweeting Feed

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the stop-repeating-me dept.

Twitter 137

WesternActor writes "According to PCMag.com, the New York Times has asked Twitter to shut down the FreeNYT Twitter feed that basically retweets all of the Times' articles. Is this really possible? After all, the feed just points to a list of Times Twitter accounts, all of which can also be found on the Times' website. If the Times succeeds in shutting this down, it could have a chilling effect for Twitter and online free speech in general."

cancel ×

137 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They wont succeed. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590316)

It would violate the twitter TOS, and its usage model... NYT can't have it both ways. Either they use twitter, or they don't

Re:They wont succeed. (5, Informative)

appleguru (1030562) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590360)

I should have looked it up before I rattled off a first post without being logged in, but it would indeed violate the standard TOS (unless NYT agreed to a custom version, which I doubt):

You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

http://twitter.com/tos [twitter.com]

Re:They wont succeed. (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590442)

The content isn't being posted by the NYT, so they don't actually have permission to it in the first place.

Just because some random guy puts content on twitter without permission doesn't mean twitter gets permission.

If the NYT officially tweeted the tweets then it would be another story, but this is someone else, who is unauthorized doing it.

Twitter is getting the content illegally (though not through any fault of their own) so their TOS is irrelevant. Its roughly the same as someone stealing my car, giving it to you, and then you claiming its OK for you to keep it/sell it or whatever because you didn't commit the actual crime.

From what I've seen however, we're not talking full articles here, just headlines and links to the articles? Meaning really what they need to do is not allow links from that twitter feed to bypass the paywall. Cutting off twitter completely isn't something they want to do since it does drive traffic to their site so they can entice people into possibly paying for the content. They just want to stop the automated systems that make a central easy to use way to bypass their paywall. I can't really disagree with them, its their content, they want to charge for it, they want to allow Twitter users to link to it and promote their site, they just don't want to create a very simple easy to use way for people to bypass the paywall and cut them out of revenue.

Re:They wont succeed. (4, Informative)

appleguru (1030562) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590520)

Did you even *read* TFS? That's the problem exactly. The NYT *is* the ones originally posting the content (yes, largely headlines), on Twitter. And now they are asking for the retweeting of their tweets to be blocked. Absurd.

Re:They wont succeed. (2)

Avalon73 (215477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590702)

He's not even retweeting, though... that's the thing. All he did was mirror the list of Twitter feeds that the NYT has already published on the web as a Twitter list, so that you only have 1 thing to follow instead of 40. Nothing is being reproduced, or even forwarded.

Either the NYT lawyers don't have a clue how Twitter works, or they just don't like what the guy is saying about them. The latter is the free speech issue.

Re:They wont succeed. (1)

segin (883667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590744)

And the retweet feature is how Twitter sublicenses the content in compliance with the TOS. This is all perfectly legal, NYT is just butthurt that someone is screwing them in a wholly legal manner.

Re:They wont succeed. (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35591138)

That said Twitter doesn't have to do anything just because it's legal. If NYT says "please stop doing X" then Twitter doesn't have to comply but they also don't have to refuse. They may find it's good business to make some kind of exemption for NYT - or not. After all nothing forces NYT to put their links on twitter either, if they don't like it they can take their ball and go play elsewhere. Personally I think Twitter should just tell NYT to shove it, but then I'm not always thinking with a sound business mind.

Re:They wont succeed. (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35591002)

Indeed, the NYT has explicitly agreed that Twitter has the right to do what has been done. If they don't like having their tweets copied, processed, adapted, or published, they need to stop using Twitter.

Um... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590324)

Won't people just create replacements using lists?

If NYT doesn't want their material tweeted, then maybe they should stop tweeting them.

Re:Um... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590490)

It is not the NYT tweeting them, idiot

Re:Um... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590588)

Yes, it is, idiot. All this other guy is doing is creating a list that follows all of the NYT accounts.

Re:Um... (2)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590666)

Except for that it is.

Re:Um... (1)

SputnikPanic (927985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590788)

Exactly what the Twitter account in question brought up: "Dear NYT: if you don't want people following your stories on Twitter then you probably shouldn't, you know, post 'em on Twitter."

And to add to the lack of logic and/or sanity, there's this gem mentioned in TFA: The NY Times spent $40 million on a paywall that can be defeated by clearing the browser's cache!

shut out NYT (4, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590332)

Just like the WSJ, and FT, this simply means that I won't be pointing any tweets to the NYT. No traffic driven to the site, no ad revenue. Maybe the $300 a year they want for an ipad subscription will generate sufficient revenue.

Re:shut out NYT (1)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590466)

If the subscription includes a free iPad, sign me up!

Re:shut out NYT (3, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590724)

No loss.

We can rely on Fox News instead. (runs)

Obvious (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590344)

So obvious, I predicted [slashdot.org] it as soon as I read the first story.

Re:Obvious (1)

Albert Sandberg (315235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590424)

So obvious, I predicted it as soon as I read the first story.

So... you want a cookie?

Re:Obvious (2)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590468)

Yes, please give him a cookie so we can track all of his predictions.

Re:Obvious (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590776)

If you've got one, hell yeah!

twitter first (1)

sproketboy (608031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590346)

Why doesn't Twitter first open up their walled garden?

Re:twitter first (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590408)

Why would they? Where's the business case? What, if they don't then the Times is going to stop using their service? ooooooooo

Re:twitter first (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35592618)

Because then they would become fragmented. Or something.

erm (5, Insightful)

cyberfin (1454265) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590354)

"it could have a chilling effect for Twitter and online free speech in general".

Eh, no. Just no. Stop it.

Re:erm (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590384)

Yeah, either they will take it down or NYT will stop letting twitter users around their pay wall. Its simple. Its not censorship of free speech, its "Hey, since we're doing this for your people, could you do this in good faith for us?" Free speech doesn't mean everybody has to give you a venue to say what you want.

Re:erm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590668)

Yeah, either they will take it down or NYT will stop letting twitter users around their pay wall.

NYT haven't put up their paywall yet (except in Canada).

Its simple. Its not censorship of free speech, its "Hey, since we're doing this for your people, could you do this in good faith for us?"

Not at all. It's "Hey, you have every legal right to repost our links, but since we're such a big company we think we can pressure you to stop.

You're level of reading comprehension is so low I would suggest looking for mental disabilities.

Re:erm (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590986)

Because everything has to go to legalities? Its legal for my friends to shit in the back of my toilet, but I prefer they don't so I ask them not to and if they continue (which they usually do) I stop inviting them over. They don't get all up in arms about how they're martyrs and I'm obstructing their bowel movements.

Re:erm (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35592270)

Yeah, either they will take it down or NYT will stop letting twitter users around their pay wall. Its simple. Its not censorship of free speech, its "Hey, since we're doing this for your people, could you do this in good faith for us?" Free speech doesn't mean everybody has to give you a venue to say what you want.

The simpler version is that there is no court involvement right now. There is no 'free speech' issue or chilling effect or anything like that. Those terms were just used to grab eyeballs.

Re:erm (1, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590504)

"Free Speech" only applies TO THE GOVERNMENT. If the government tried to force Twitter to stop tweets about the war, that would be a free speech issue.

Here it is in the original text: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I have no problem with people actually standing up for their rights, but people most people that do stand up have no clue what is going on.

A big news story from my alma mater was when the police tried to force a photographer to stop filming. [boywithgrenade.org] THAT did violate his rights. Numerous people who defended the cop pointed to HIIPA. [hhs.gov] Which makes no sense what so ever. HIIPA only prevents providers from releasing *identifying information* about a patient.
Asking someone getting medical care their name: No Violation.
Asking the medic their name and getting it: Violation.
Talking about a patient with another doctor using no identifying information: No violation.
Talking about a patient with another doctor using identifying information: Violation.

NYT (company) asking Twitter (company) to stop something is no way shape or form a 'censorship' or 'freedom of speech' issue.

Re:erm (4, Insightful)

kidcharles (908072) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590654)

Who even mentioned the 1st Amendment? Free speech as a principle is bigger than just the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Just because something isn't technically in violation of that particular clause doesn't mean it isn't undermining the freedom of speech. As a hypothetical example, if Comcast decided not to allow any discussion of FCC regulatory policies to flow through their network infrastructure it wouldn't technically be a violation of the 1st Amendment, but it would quite clearly be a blow to free speech.

Re:erm (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35592026)

Sadly, the only reason Comcast could get away with that is because it's in a monopoly position. If there was actual competition in the telco space, anyone who cared about that issue could kick them to the curb - and nobody's free speech would be impinged. Hopefully, enough people would care, and the telco would go under.

We only really need to care about government censorship, because that's the only sort that we can't just avoid (and kill off in the process). That also extends to government-endorsed monopolies.

Re:erm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35592368)

We only really need to care about government censorship

how's that corporate cock taste?

Re:erm (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35592468)

Yes, because advocating killing off corporations by oxygen starvation is sucking their cock. Truly you have a dazzling intellect.

Re:erm (1)

dthx1138 (833363) | more than 3 years ago | (#35592848)

When you say "free speech" it's generally assumed that you are referring to censorship by the government, because well, that is the only kind protected by law. Censorship from private entities is common- that's their right. For some reason in the internet age, people have begun to equate the two. Do you think the average citizen would have been outraged in the the 1700s or 1800s if a newspaper refused to publish the letters of everyone who wrote to the editor?

Re:erm (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590664)

The protections for the freedom of speech in the US Constitution are, as you say, applicable only against governmental acts.

But free speech in general is not limited to issues of government censorship, and NYT's actions, if successful, would indeed hinder the free speech of Twitter's users.

Re:erm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590722)

Here it is in the original text: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ah, so there's your problem right there, you're reading from the Constitution. I would assume that the GP was referring to the Slashdot reading of the First Amendment, which reads, and I quote, "Everyone must do everything I want all the time, and it must be free". Interestingly enough, that's also the exact text of Amendments 2 through 27.

Re:erm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590828)

It isn't a first amendment issue, but it is both a censorship and a free speech issue.

Re:erm (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590850)

Well, they aren't "asking", they are actually making a trademark claim (!!). When they have to resort to bullying before they've even gotten started, it's proof that their business model is stupid beyond belief.

As for "free speech", perhaps the definition needs changing to reflect today's realities, specifically that the government has delegated censorship to private parties to circumvent the constitution (by refusing service, as Twitter could do, or by making IP claims, as in the NYT is doing).

Re:erm (4, Insightful)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35591028)

"Free Speech" only applies TO THE GOVERNMENT.

No, free speech is free speech. The constitutional protections of free speech are applicable to the government.

There is still plenty of sound argument and valid reasoning to want to have free speech that is protected from the actions of individuals and corporations.

In the real world, this becomes difficult or impossible to enforce. Hence the saying that free speech is not without consequences.

Nevertheless, it is in the interests of the people to advocate for a broad reaching, maximized freedom of speech, subject to practical limits of enforcement, and reason (let's avoid stupid logical paradoxes and fallacies in the pursuit of freest speech). There's some wiggle room for weasels in the concept of "practical limits" but clearly the guiding principle should be that the limits on speech should be kept as minimal as possible.

Corporate censorship may not be illegal, but it is still wrong and the good and righteous still ought to fight the good fight against it.

Re:erm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35592544)

Well since nobody is forcing them to use twitter, twitter has the right to censor whoever it wants

In the same way that when you go to somebody house, if you say certain things they can kick you out. On twitter, how nobody is forcing you to use it, they have all the right to censor you if they think you don't follow the rules.

freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want, but you can't force people to hear you and when you say things through privates they can change what you say. (privates not public)

Fixed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590630)

"it could have a chilling effect for Twitter and online free reading of the NYT in general".

Re:erm (1)

BadPirate (1572721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590640)

"it could have a chilling effect for Twitter and online free speech in general".

Thumbs up. I jumped on this same sentence. Free speech isn't really involved here.

Re:erm (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590674)

Who cares? Throw them out the window! Forcing people to accept a stupid corporation's stupid business model is all that matters!

Re:erm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35592710)

Who cares? Throw them out the window! Forcing people to accept a stupid corporation's stupid business model is all that matters!

That argument would carry more weight if this was people using their own work and content, and not re-tweeting that of the New York Times.

You want to make your own news model? Go ahead, but do your own work.

Re:erm (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35592840)

How so? It's an insanely stupid business model if they need to bring out the lawyers to stop people retweeting!

NYT is being very short sighted (1)

bigjarom (950328) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590358)

The NYT is backing itself into a corner, and is putting itself in a similar position as the RIAA. They are antagonizing their fans and readers. I just wonder how long it will be until they start suing people who regularly access their content through 'backdoor' means.

Alternatives (3, Interesting)

freakingme (1244996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590362)

Luckily there are alternatives like http://identi.ca/ [identi.ca] . Great joy for developers (lots of api access), and it's distributed, so they cant pull stunts like the ones twitter has been doing lately. Also, it can sync with twitter so you only have to type all your microblogs just once.

Re:Alternatives (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590454)

Awesome ... its distributed ... except not really since you have to go to a central site to start with.

Re:Alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590696)

http://status.net/open-source

Re:Alternatives (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590710)

That's not an alternative in this case. The NYT has recently put up a paywall so that only paying members can read articles. They aren't entirely stupid, they realise this will make people stop linking to them, so they've added exceptions to make sharing articles more likely.

One of these exceptions is for Twitter - if somebody links to the article from their Twitter account, you don't have to pay to read the article. Cue a Twitter account that posts links to all of their articles, thus subverting the paywall.

How is identi.ca an alternative? The NYT hasn't made an exception for identi.ca, they've made an exception for Twitter. If the exact same service was running on identi.ca, it wouldn't have the same effect as it does running on Twitter.

Re:Alternatives (1)

freakingme (1244996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590758)

You're absolutely right. What I meant however, was that lately twitter has been censoring more and more people, have been pushing ads everywhere, announced that they're not accepting new client apps, etc. Identi.ca is an alternative to twitter. Not an alternative of getting to the NYT.

Re:Alternatives (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 3 years ago | (#35592850)

No, cue their own twitter accounts that are publishing links to all their articles. And this guy's account that list all those accounts.

The NYT is even stupid than this article makes them sound. They're the ones tweeting the links, and no one is 'retweeting' them.

Twitter has a feature where an account can publish a group of other accounts, like 'famous TV stars' or whatever, which people can see all at once, or even follow or unfollow as a group. Some guy went and combed through the NYT's pages and collected all their feeds and put them in a group on that account, so you can follow them all at once, or pick whatever you want.

He's not even tweeting their stuff. They're the ones doing that! All he has is 'Here is a list of all the NYT feeds, which will let you read NYT articles for free if you follow a link.'

Hey, morons at the NYT: If you don't want people following your twitter feed and going to your web pages for free, either a) stop tweeting, or b) stop letting people who followed links in the tweets in free.

Please prevent news from happening (2, Funny)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590370)

NYT: Please refrain from letting anything newsworthy happen until we have reported on it... Thank you.

The Times can ASK (1, Insightful)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590372)

That doesn't mean Twitter has to comply with the request to not share public information.

And this is a bad thing - why? (5, Insightful)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590382)

If the Times succeeds in shutting this down, it could have a chilling effect for Twitter and online free speech in general."

Anything that has a chilling effect on Twitter can't be all bad!

Re:And this is a bad thing - why? (1)

the phantom (107624) | more than 3 years ago | (#35592154)

I'm not sure which is more frightening and depressing: the fact that you were modded insightful (rather than funny), or the fact that I agree with that moderation.

NYT's paywall is flawed, that's why. (2)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590392)

The title for this post should be "New York Times Asks Twitter to Shut Down Paywall-Evading Account". The actual story here is how NYT's paywall is flawed [slashdot.org]

The irony... (2)

DrSpock11 (993950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590482)

After their fervent Wikileaks support, and their history of publishing classified documents, now they're on the other side of the coin with people publishing information that they want to have control over.

Seems like poetic justice to me.

Re:The irony... (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 3 years ago | (#35591070)

After their fervent Wikileaks support, and their history of publishing classified documents, now they're on the other side of the coin with people publishing information that they want to have control over.

Seems like poetic justice to me.

Perhaps I'm being trolled here but...Uhh..no. This is quite different. The Wikileaks disclosures and the Pentagon Papers, etc. is journalism.

Getting "documents" from NYT in violation of the license they grant to users for their *copyrighted* (whether or not you or anyone else think it has value) content is helping folks to steal.

As was pointed out in the comments to the other "NYT Paywall" post today, reporters, editors, web server admins, etc. rely on the NYT revenue to eat and pay rent and all those good things that some of us (if you go by some of the comments) don't need to do.

That's like saying 'It doesn't matter that Laura HIllenbrand expended effort to create "Unbroken" I should be able to read her book for free because its available as an ebook.'

N.B.: I picked that author/book off the NYT's bestseller list only because it is available as an ebook not as an endorsement of the book.

Some of you may say, "Why should I pay for the crap they post on the NYT website? The NYT are a bunch of hacks and losers who wouldn't know jpurnalism if it came up and bit them on the ass." Fair enough. If you feel that way, don't read their content. But don't justify stealing their content by saying they suck.

Re:The irony... (1)

DrSpock11 (993950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35591250)

After their fervent Wikileaks support, and their history of publishing classified documents, now they're on the other side of the coin with people publishing information that they want to have control over.

Seems like poetic justice to me.

Perhaps I'm being trolled here but...Uhh..no. This is quite different. The Wikileaks disclosures and the Pentagon Papers, etc. is journalism.

Getting "documents" from NYT in violation of the license they grant to users for their *copyrighted* (whether or not you or anyone else think it has value) content is helping folks to steal.

As was pointed out in the comments to the other "NYT Paywall" post today, reporters, editors, web server admins, etc. rely on the NYT revenue to eat and pay rent and all those good things that some of us (if you go by some of the comments) don't need to do.

That's like saying 'It doesn't matter that Laura HIllenbrand expended effort to create "Unbroken" I should be able to read her book for free because its available as an ebook.'

N.B.: I picked that author/book off the NYT's bestseller list only because it is available as an ebook not as an endorsement of the book.

Some of you may say, "Why should I pay for the crap they post on the NYT website? The NYT are a bunch of hacks and losers who wouldn't know jpurnalism if it came up and bit them on the ass." Fair enough. If you feel that way, don't read their content. But don't justify stealing their content by saying they suck.

So publishing classified government documents is somehow not stealing? Somewhere along the line, someone has to have stolen the documents, by definition, as they were classified.

The Times can't have it both ways. The philosophy behind publishing classified documents is that no information should be restricted to only certain people. They then can't turn around and try to enact draconian restrictions to their own information.

The reality is that they only believe in freedom of information when it suits their financial and political motivations.

Re:The irony... (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 3 years ago | (#35591514)

They then can't turn around and try to enact draconian restrictions to their own information.

The reality is that they only believe in freedom of information when it suits their financial and political motivations.

My apologies. I guess my analogy wasn't sufficiently clear.

Information (e.g., government documents, Baseball box scores, etc.) is not the same thing as creative expression (e.g., news articles, books, etc.). Wikileaks posts information. Newspapers engage in creative expression (you can argue about the value of that expression if you want, but it's still creative expression).

Do you get the point now?

Uhhhh...no. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590526)

"Chilling effect" is something the government does to Free Speech, and is illegal so they can't do it when the courts say they can't. Private organizations can't do it at all without your cooperation. Not even the NY Times. They can ask nice, but fuck 'em if I keep aggregating their shit.

Re:Uhhhh...no. (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590546)

That's okay, not like I use twitter. I stopped reading the NYT about 6 years ago when they went even more bat shit insane than usual. But if they want to put themselves in to a fine gated community and refuse to let anyone unless they pay. They can finish dying off in the era of new media.

Re:Uhhhh...no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590684)

Of course corporations can do so. I bet any corp threatening to sue you will make you do or cease whatever they want you to, simply because you cannot afford to stand up to them.

Re:Uhhhh...no. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35591796)

You can always afford to stand up to them, by making it more than they can afford to lose to you.

Being a pussy is how tyranny gets its power in the first place.

Re:Uhhhh...no. (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35592658)

More eloquently,
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

A Bit Overdramatic Aren't We? (2, Insightful)

mackai (1849630) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590530)

That a commercial entity requests that Twitter not automatically feed all of their news articles to the world hardly seems like an affront to free speech. You or I may not care for that policy but I must admit, the NYT isn't making much money off of me either way. The news reporting business in general is struggling to find a way to stay afloat and the cry that they owe it to us gratis doesn't help.

It's the New York Times that's posting them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590606)

I repeat: Official New York Times Twitter accounts are posting New York Times articles to Twitter.

All @FreeNYT does is have a public list of the relevant official New York Times Twitter accounts. It's not even retweeting what the NYT Twitter accounts are posting.

ANYONE CAN MAKE THIS LIST ON TWITTER.

Does Twitter want to set the precedent that your account can be suspended because you're simply following the "wrong" accounts?

nytimes primarily corepirate nazi support group (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590542)

so, failing to be fed that propagandic doublespeak processed byrd twit, could lead to a much cleaner cage? some freakish cults are thrilled with fantastic bs, as it becomes their 'reward'. they'll even pay to read it, as it matches their agenda.

subscribiblers get all those free ads, cookies++ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590810)

that's right. sorry

"a chilling effect for Twitter" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590544)

.. and life goes on ... yyyyawn

NY Times Asks Twitter To Shut Down Retweeting Feed (3, Funny)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590558)

Zill writes

"According to PCMag.com, the New York Times has asked Twitter to shut down [pcmag.com] the FreeNYT Twitter feed [twitter.com] that basically retweets all of the Times' articles. Is this really possible? After all, the feed just points to a list [twitter.com] of Times Twitter accounts, all of which can also be found on the Times' website [nytimes.com] . If the Times succeeds in shutting this down, it could have a chilling effect for Twitter and online free speech in general."

Re:NY Times Asks Twitter To Shut Down Retweeting F (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590676)

Anonymous Coward writes

"According to PCMag.com, the New York Times has asked Twitter to shut down [pcmag.com] the FreeNYT Twitter feed [twitter.com] that basically retweets all of the Times' articles. Is this really possible? After all, the feed just points to a list [twitter.com] of Times Twitter accounts, all of which can also be found on the Times' website [nytimes.com] . If the Times succeeds in shutting this down, it could have a chilling effect for Twitter and online free speech in general."

Re:NY Times Asks Twitter To Shut Down Retweeting F (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 3 years ago | (#35591142)

Zill writes

...all of which can also be found on the Times' website [nytimes.com] ...

I just checked and that page is no longer available on the NYT website -- no surprise there given their request to Twitter.

The same "chilling effect" as on "tv links" sites. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590560)

This is a stupid post. The New York Times could keep their content completely paywalled, or get rid of the unlimited Twitter/Facebook link access. They have those features to help keep access to their content open, which, by the way, is generated at cost to them. Despite what a lot of you seem to think, Internet denizens are not entitled to all content for free for all time, as long as you can figure out a scheme to bypass technological protections on content.

Re:The same "chilling effect" as on "tv links" sit (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590662)

Sure they could do those things, but they have chosen not to and want twitter to act as their agent. Unless they plan to pay twitter it might as well ignore them.

This is not bypassing anything, NY Times allows you to read articles if you came from twitter. These links on twitter do just that. This is exactly what they should have expected would happen. If I announce that everyone who comes to my house with a red shirt gets free a free meal, I bet lots of folks would take me up on the offer and someone may start selling red shirts outside my house.

Online Free Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590564)

Have you been living in Rumsfeld's spider-hole?

Free speech died a long time ago in the former U.S.A.

Wake up and smell the Tomahawks.

Yours In Tripoli,
Kilgore Trout [youtube.com]

Feed violates NYTimes ToS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590572)

Don't see the problem here. Simply put, this feed violates the NYTimes ToS:

"2.2 The Services and Contents are protected by copyright pursuant to U.S. and international copyright laws. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce (except as provided in Section 2.3 of these Terms of Service), create new works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the Content or the Services (including software) in whole or in part."

from http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/rights/terms/terms-of-service.html#b

Re:Feed violates NYTimes ToS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590682)

If they were reposting the articles themselves, that would be true. However, they're not. They're simply retweeting (or perhaps aggregating) Twitter posts that were made by the New York Times itself. If that violates Twitter's TOS, then perhaps the NYTimes has a case. However, the NYTimes TOS is irrelevent here...

Re:Feed violates NYTimes ToS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590800)

Hm. I see your point.

So the NYTimes should stop publishing articles from twitter, *then* they can go after everyone that links to their content.

Brilliant!

Re:Feed violates NYTimes ToS. (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590974)

No it doesn't. The penalty for ToS violations is account termination or suspension, not complaining to twitter.

1.1 If you choose to use NYTimes.com (the “Site”), NYT’s mobile sites and applications, any of the features of this site, including but not limited to RSS, API, software and other downloads (collectively, the "NYT Services"), you will be agreeing to abide by all of the terms and conditions of these Terms of Service between you and The New York Times Company ("NYT", “us” or “we”).

10.2 NYT may, in its sole discretion, terminate or suspend your access to all or part of the Services for any reason, including, without limitation, breach or assignment of these Terms of Service.

Re:Feed violates NYTimes ToS. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590976)

Which of those is it doing?
It does not seem to do any as far as I can tell.

Okay. I don't understand. (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590598)

So, @freenyt is retweeting @nytimes. And @nytimes is the official twitter feed. Is that correct?

I just don't see why anyone would follow @freenyt when they could follow @nytimes. Surely both are available on twitter.

Re:Okay. I don't understand. (2)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590836)

the NY Times tweets their headlines under 20 or so different accounts (nytimesarts, nytimesopinions, etc). freenyt has a list [twitter.com] of all of them. You could do the same with any twitter client, too.

Free speech? (1, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590604)

Speech isn't free, slashdot. It has a cost: Stop using Twitter. But that's not convenient, is it? And that, right there, is how freedom dies.

Chilling effects (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590690)

There is no chilling effect, that is total hyperbole. To have a chilling effect there has to be possible negative consequences or reprisal for an action. Having a free twitter account where all you do is retweet shutdown is not going to give anyone the chills. You can create new one in 5min.

Now if they sued the person who set the account up or something that might have chilling effect.

NYT (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590728)

The New York Times is not a biased news source! Stop saying it is! It is the oasis of objective news in a world of bribed sources. You might as well say that National Public Radio doesn't represent the Public of the Nation via the medium of Radio.

Land of the Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35590738)

I hope Homeland Security seizes Twitter's domain(s) for illegally linking to copyrighted material.

Put it another way (1)

microbee (682094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590794)

Tweet should have an option for "do not allow retweet for this tweet". Problem solved.

Of course, it doesn't forbid people manually copy/paste the text, but still, this could be a useful feature.

Re:Put it another way (1)

jvkjvk (102057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35591706)

So, now you want to add DRM to tweets, too?

Gah.

Twitter is an information sharing service. Let's try to keep anything we can able to be shared, ok?

Factually Incorrect Title: There Is No Retweeting (5, Informative)

thehossman (198379) | more than 3 years ago | (#35590806)

The twitter account in question isn't retweeting the URLs.

There is no automated bot in play here.

All this guy did was create a "Twitter List" of the ~40 official Twitter Accounts used by the NYTimes (they seem to have one per section of their site) ...

https://twitter.com/#!/FreeNYT/firehose/members [twitter.com]

...if you follow that "list" you get access to all of those URLs.

You would get access to the same URLs if you followed each of those ~40 individual twitter accounts directly.

Essentially the NYT is complaining that someone is promoting the existence of their twitter accounts.

Their only weapon is trademark rights (1)

jfruhlinger (470035) | more than 3 years ago | (#35591128)

The only reason they can even ask for this is that the feed has "NYT" in its name. They should just relaunch under the name "FreeGreyLady" or something ("the grey lady" being an old-school nickname for the New York TImes, even though it's been in color for a while now.) Assuming the Times' hasn't trademarked that, I'd think they couldn't touch it.

Re:Their only weapon is trademark rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35591546)

"FreeProminentNorthAmericanNewspaperPublisherBasedInNYC"

Twitter NEEDS to stop the re-tweet (4, Insightful)

ChronoFish (948067) | more than 3 years ago | (#35591182)

By stopping it at its source. So shutdown the NYTimes twitter account - that way there will be no way to re-tweet it.

-CF

Free publicity for NYTimes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35591212)

This is obviously just a way for the NYTimes to get attention for their new subscription program. And you all fell for it.

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35591304)

Can't you see, this paywall thing, facebook, and all the app stuff ist just AWESOME!

finally, all the frakking idiots are hidden from the internet. The internet(TM) is going to be cleaned.

nasty discussions about fake journalism are taking place aside from the public, nobody gives a shit if polititian A really did boink his dog. THAT'S JUST AWESOME!

All the idiots discussing farts behind closed doors on facebook. Please, PLEASE, more paywalls and the like.

Appify everything that mainstream-retards like, make them pay for it. REALLY REALLY pay for it (money I mean).

I for one welcome our new Closed Curtain Overlords!

Screw the NYT (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35591420)

Don't read it, don't buy it, and for damn certain don't pay for online access to it. Good lord, read your news anywhere else; these guys are out of control.

It's a problem even if they don't block it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35591694)

"If the Times succeeds in shutting this down, it could have a chilling effect for Twitter and online free speech in general."

I think it has a chilling effect if Twitter even has a system in place to do this, whether or not they do it just shows to whom they have bias. I am more concerned with them using bias at all.

Lost In Time? (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35591984)

Violate freedom of speech? Where have you been the past few months...

Streisand Effect (1)

Thuktun (221615) | more than 3 years ago | (#35592638)

Shutting it down will only trigger imitators. Heck, asking for shutdown may have already done that.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>