Former Trump Aide Launches Twitter Clone, That Seems To Yank A Ton Of Data Right Out Of Twitter; Already Has First Content Moderation Crisis

from the freeze-peach dept

Just as more news of what Trump wanted from Parler breaks, comes the news that his somewhat infamous former aide, Jason Miller, has launched a social media site called GETTR. It should be noted that through all of the rumors about Trump starting his own social network, it was usually Jason Miller who was claiming that it was on the way.

Apparently, though, Miller stepped down from his role as Trump spokesperson to run GETTR -- and there are reports claiming that the originator of GETTR is someone trying to build "an important link between China and the West" with GETTR and a series of related apps.

Separately, a Bloomberg White House reporter says Trump isn't planning on joining GETTR and is still planning yet another social network. So... we'll see.

Of course, like every single social media site, while this one claims it's all about free speech, its terms of service make it clear it can kick you off the platform for any reason whatsoever:

GETTR holds freedom of speech as its core value and does not wish to censor your opinions. Nonetheless, GETTR may, but will not have any obligation to, review, monitor, display, post, store, maintain, accept, or otherwise make use of, any of your UGC, and GETTR may, in its sole discretion, reject, delete, move, re-format, remove, or refuse to post or otherwise make use of UGC without notice or any liability to you or any third-party in connection with our operation of UGC venues in an appropriate manner, such as to enhance accessibility of UGC, address copyright infringement, and protect Users from harmful UGC. Without limitation, we may, but do not commit to, do so to address content that comes to our attention that we believe is offensive, obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, pornographic, violent, harassing, threatening, abusive, illegal, or otherwise objectionable or inappropriate, or to enforce the rights of third parties or these Terms or any applicable Additional Terms. For example, this may include content identified as personal bullying, sexual abuse of a child, attacking any religion or race, or content containing video or depictions of beheadings. Such UGC submitted by you or others need not be maintained on the Service by us for any period of time, and you will not have the right, once submitted, to access, archive, maintain, change, remove, or otherwise use such UGC on the Service or elsewhere, except that certain users may have certain additional rights as provided for in the Privacy Policy.

I like how they take phrases directly from Section 230 and insert it there. Though it's also amusing that they add "inappropriate" to "otherwise objectionable," seeing as Trumpworld has been trying to delete "otherwise objectionable" from 230 entirely, and limiting 230 to just a specific list of "bad" stuff. Yet, GETTR seems to be claiming even broader rights to moderate.

And, not surprisingly, the company is already, on its first day, dealing with some moderation issues as it appears that people trolling the site are flooding it with junk:

It turns out that every social media site, so as not to be filled with garbage, has to do some moderation. Though it'll be fun to square the views of people who insist that social media sites shouldn't do any such moderation with the need to clear out the "lewd anime pics and the "pig poop balls" meme" from the #QAnon tag.

But there are some other concerns as well. People are noticing that not only does GETTR look remarkably similar to Twitter (with a slightly larger character limit -- 777 characters), but that it seems to be grabbing a bunch of data directly from Twitter. Indeed, in what appears like a move to "boost" user numbers, reports say that if you use your own Twitter account name, GETTR will "import" all your followers -- apparently by creating fake ghost accounts for all of those accounts.

GETTR’s app also claims to offer new users the ability to “import copies of your content from Twitter to GETTR.” And evidence on the site indicates that the new platform is also allowing users to import their actual Twitter followers — who somehow end up with GETTR accounts of their own.

For example, Republican Senate candidate Sean Parnell in Pennsylvania, had over 175,000 followers on GETTR as of Thursday afternoon, despite only joining the platform Thursday. His follower count on GETTR is identical to his follower count on Twitter.

The same goes for Murtaugh, Trump’s former 2020 communications director, who had amassed over 220,000 followers on both GETTR and Twitter as of Thursday afternoon.

“Tweets are up to the point you join, it won’t continuously suck them in. The idea is we want people to move from Twitter to Gettr,” said the person involved with the app. The person added that the app does not harvest the users current Twitter followers for the app, and again noted it is in Beta.

I do wonder how Twitter will feel about that. Of course, to some extent, this is somewhat like the vision Twitter has for Bluesky, but that hasn't been implemented yet. And just pulling out all of someone else's data raises... quite a few questions. It does seem worth mentioning that the ACCESS bill that was introduced in Congress recently would require Twitter and others to allow such exporting of data to other services.

But GETTR seems to be going, well, to a fairly extreme level. To get images from Twitter... it's hotlinking images DIRECTLY FROM TWITTER. In other words, it's not grabbing those images, it's just displaying them as hosted by Twitter. That's... bold. In some ways it's just reskinning Twitter.

I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. As I've discussed for years, being able to let users snarf their own data out of one service and into another is a good thing for competition. But... it can also raise a bunch of other questions regarding privacy, data control, possibly copyright, and (under the decision in the Facebook/Power case), possible CFAA violations. That is to say, I hope GETTR has some good lawyers lined up. The fact that they apparently fucked up their DMCA registration doesn't bode well on that front.

Anyway, I guess we're now going to see if GETTR gets to speed run the content moderation learning curve the same way Parler did -- and how it deals with content moderation and (better yet) questions around Section 230.

Filed Under: content moderation, copyright, donald trump, hotlinking, jason miller, section 230, social media
Companies: gettr, twitter

Dutch Judges Plagiarize, Potentially Infringe, Blog Post In Decision About Copyright

from the pot,-kettle dept

A little while ago, we had a rather long and heated discussion over the question of whether or not embedding/hotlinking is infringement when the original content is hosted/served from elsewhere (in an authorized manner). I cannot see a truly defensible legal explanation for how that is infringing (the content exists solely in two places -- the original server and the browser of the user, both of which are authorized). However, some lawyers clearly disagree. Over in the Netherlands, in fact, a court has disagreed and claimed that embedding is, in fact, infringement. While I think this is a poor ruling that makes little sense, there's something more interesting in this particular ruling (sent in by an anonymous reader). It turns out that, in explaining why embedding should be considered infringing, the judges plagiarized the exact wording of a blog post by a Dutch lawyer.

Now, plagiarism and copyright infringement are two different (though sometimes overlapping) things, but it does seem a bit ironic -- and even under Dutch copyright law, this bit of copying could be seen as infringement as well. Apparently, the judges directly cut and pasted the following two sentences:

"in case law and legal literature it is generally held that an embedded link constitutes a publication. After all, the material can be viewed or heard within the context of the website of those who placed the link, and placement causes the material to reach a new audience."

The exact quote above came from a blog post by lawyer Douwe Linders, who had no idea the judges were going to copy it. While it seems like a simple quote like this should be perfectly legal in any context, let alone a legal decision, the discussion of this notes that while Dutch copyright law does let you quote short bits of content from others for a variety of reasons, it requires attribution. In this particular case, no attribution was provided.

What makes it even worse, of course, is that the quoted/plagiarized/infringing bit might not even be accurate. As we discussed in our own post on the subject, there appears to be significant disagreement over whether or not embedding authorized content could be seen as infringing -- and apparently, there is a widespread debate about it in Dutch legal circles as well, saying that it is far from readily agreed upon in the legal literature.

Filed Under: copyright, embedding, hotlinking, netherlands, plagiarism

Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?

from the i-don't-think-so... dept

Copycense points us to a writeup by a patent attorney named Steve O'Donnell about copyright and blogging. Why a patent attorney is writing about copyright is not clearly explained. Initially, since the title of O'Donnell's post was "How many copyrights does your blog infringe?" I thought the post might be one of those blog posts that reminds us how frequently everyone "technically" infringes on copyright incidentally and how this demonstrates how screwed up copyright law is. But, no, instead, this appears to be a serious "warning" claiming that most bloggers are risking the potential of $150,000 fines by using images they find online.

Copycense points out the irony that O'Donnell uses an image in the post itself and notes that the image appears to be in the public domain, but isn't sure. However, I think a bigger issue with the post is hidden in this sentence:

If you find a picture on Flickr, another blog, or somewhere else online and upload it to your own blog (or worse yet, inline link to it from your blog) without permission, you're committing a copyright violation.

First of all, that's not necessarily true. Obviously it depends on lots of other factors -- but I really question the parenthetical. Would inline linking (usually called "hotlinking") to an image be copyright infringement under any circumstance? I understand that it's considered rude and generally frowned upon in internet circles (and, in some cases the hoster of the original file will "get back" at the hotlinker by changing the image to something different... and potentially nasty). But is it copyright infringement? Technically, a hotlinked image is no different than a link to an image. The difference in code is minimal. The image itself is never "copied" onto your server. All you are doing is telling a computer to go visit the original version of the image, which was put there on purpose.

We've had similar discussions in the past about whether or not it could be copyright infringement to embed an infringing video on your site -- and the situation is basically the same with hotlinked images. The content still resides on the original server and is not copied to the new server at all. If the content itself is infringing, then perhaps there's a (really, really, really) weak case for contributory infringement, but in O'Donnell's post, he seems to be implying that even hotlinking to an authorized image would be copyright infringement, and I just don't see how that makes sense from a technological or legal perspective at all.

Filed Under: copyright, hotlinking, images, inline linking

Um, Sorry, But You Don't Get To Sue When Somebody Moves Images You're Hotlinking

from the so-many-stupid-people dept

While courts around the world have come to different conclusions on the legality of hotlinking -- placing an inline link in a web page to an image hosted on a different web server -- it's a practice that's generally regarded as bad internet manners. The cases have generally focused on the sites displaying other people's images, but this point was apparently lost on one bright spark, who threatened the host of a site whose images he was hotlinking with a lawsuit (via Kottke.org) after the host took the original site down and deleted the images. Again, while courts differ on their views about hotlinking, it's pretty unlikely that any court would agree that the person doing the hotlinking has a right to the continued use of the images. This guy felt otherwise, at least until he actually spoke to his lawyer about it, who apparently clued him in. In some way, it's sort of disappointing that the guy's lawyer didn't want to move forward, since the suit would been pretty amusing.

Filed Under: hotlinking, legal threats