AI scrapers do not give a crap about this and will mask their scrapers behind fake accounts, VPNs, etc. The purpose of this is to scare off researchers from trying to analyze tweets to see, e.g., just how much hate speech is on X and how heavily the site promotes it.
Is X under any obligation to demonstrate that those damages are reasonable besides "you agree"? Is there an expectation that each person agreeing is somehow informed enough to agree to that?
Is it enforceable?
This is a great point — folks might not understand that one can only do scientific research by showing reproducible data, which under these terms leaves one open to legal action by Musk
Here the direct link to the report for the people who want to read it. open.clemson.edu/mfh_reports/7/
Is there really many researchers still using the site? It used to be free (with a vetting process), but now it looks like you'd need a Pro (dev) account which runs $5,000 USD a month. I'm sure some research groups have money/can get grants for that (for short term data collection). 1/2
They’ll just brigade it with a pool of IPs.
I thought X was the “public square”. Seems like maybe that’s not the case now.
Ah here, we go. Clemson researchers find a massive pro-Trump botnet on X. Two weeks later, X terms of service are updated with a liquidated damages clause for excessive views to scare off future researchers. open.clemson.edu/mfh_reports/7/
The bot network supported Republican candidates in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania and boosted North Carolina’s Republican-led voter identification law.