Twitter Removes Free API Access
Elon Musk is continuing his mission to turn Twitter into a profitable ego project by removing free API access for developers. API stands for Application Programming Interface. The word “application,” in this context, denotes any software with a specific function. “Interface” denotes a working relationship between two different applications, and so access to the API of Twitter answers a lot of questions about how the application runs and communicates with other applications in the digital space. Removing free API access means that developers—even ones as highbrow as Apple—will now have to pay in order to create updates to the iPhone Twitter application. It also means other parties—such as journalists—will now have to pay to see how Twitter operates when it disseminates information.
Very little information has become available as to why Twitter has decided to put API access behind a paywall, other than a February 2nd post saying the site will “no longer support free access to the Twitter API.” After several days of backlash, Twitter posted again with a false claim that “there has been an immense amount of enthusiasm for the upcoming changes with Twitter API,” and that changes would go live sooner rather than later.
Developers have been adamant that putting Twitter’s API behind a paywall will deincentivize use among small developers. “Charging devs for API access without proving them with a way to monetize their apps seems like a bad move. This will further alienate small devs and push them to experiment on other platforms,” tweeted Andrei Taraschuk, co-founder and CEO of BotFrens, a service that provides personalized bots for small businesses to utilize.
Journalists, too, have been incredulous at the announcement. “If you told me, I would have said this is a satire story. This can’t be true,” said Maarten Schenk, the co-founder of LeadStories, a U.S.-based fact-checking outlet that relies on Twitter’s API. “But no. It’s real. It’s an astounding level of unprofessionalism by a major organization.” Spam bots and other bad actors who use Twitter’s API are the most likely to continue operations, since they make revenue from spam and from clicks on their pink slime journalism pages. “The ironic thing is that they’re ostensibly trying to stop the bad bots — the spammers,” said Schenk. “But they actually make money from spamming. Oh yeah, here’s a hundred bucks, no problem, and then they keep spamming. But it pushes out the hobbyists that make bots that make Twitter fun.”
Not only that, notes Hernández-Echevarría, but this new move actively takes away pathways to identifying misinformation and disinformation disseminators in Twitter’s landscape. “Some others are complaining about ongoing projects ending — for example, tracking the harassment of women journalists. If they don’t have the data, they can’t do it anymore,” said Hernández- Echevarría. “Even organizations that raise awareness about natural disasters — such as the one happening in Turkey right now — have been relying on this technology that is going to be soon unavailable.”
While Twitter has doubled down on its commitment to misinformation and disinformation, helped in no small part by Elon Musk himself sharing and re-sharing conspiracy theories, other major social media outlets have doubled down on their commitment to fact-checking and journalism. Google and YouTube partnered with the International Fact-Checking Network in order to distribute $13.2 million in grants to fact-checkers around the world. Despite challenges arising from Elon Musk’s continued descent into hyper-egotism, which has already seen far-reaching consequences throughout the world, the media landscape will continue to look for other ways in which to shift the conversation back to truth and facts.
