wanting to lock users in and make it harder to leave for another service and still maintain a presence (which is also a constant ad for that other service) by cross-posting
wanting to make it harder to see the stuff you're following people for without ads inserted every few posts
I 'm pretty sure their response was in order to avoid bad PR during the Analytica scandal period.
Having itself supplanted MySpace, Facebook is in a good position to see how easy data-exports can help competitors supplant a dominant company.
3rd-party clients are also a good way to remove ads and tracking, which is obviously not in Twitter or Facebook's best financial interest.
I 'm personally all in favor of making the APIs open and unlimited again, but within a month you 'll have journalists nagging again
Facebook has a history of outright suing 3rd party apps.[2]
If I can log into Twitter, I should also be able to update my account with an HTTP request. That's it. I shouldn't need to sign an agreement, or tell them why I'm programmatically accessing my account, or dig into a settings page. I should be able to grant an OAUTH permission to anyone that gives them access to that API, and Facebook shouldn't be able to sue that person just because they got around an IP block. That should just be part of my account.
I don't know if this legislation guarantees that (the article doesn't link to the text of the bill). Most tech legislation is bad, so there's a good chance it doesn't. But the principle remains.
[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/16/17699626/twitter-third-pa...
[1]: https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/basics/developer-porta...
[2]: https://www.eff.org/cases/facebook-v-power-ventures