People are too quick to understand these new terms as solely necessary to provide service. The entire paragraph is:<p>> "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). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services."<p>It is easy to associate the concession of license (specially the "You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, ... to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication ... subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use.") with the service provided ("This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same"), but I do not see where it say that Twitter can <i></i>only<i></i> do this for providing the service. AFAIK, Twitter still can, for example, sell photos to a news agency through this same terms.<p>Of course, IANAL.