On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Taylor Singletary
wrote:
> I'm curious what you mean by an "opt-in app on your home page in Twitter"?
I suspect the question is about a mailing list opt-in form installed
on the Twitter home page, e.g. for an autoresponder service like
AWeber or iContact. It's pro
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Dewald Pretorius wrote:
>
> Would you mind taking a stab at clarifying Section 5.E of the new TOS,
> which reads, "You may not use Twitter Content or other data collected
> from end users of your Client to create or maintain a separate status
> update or social net
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Abraham Williams <4bra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If they light bulb had no cost (such as electricity) and automatically turns
> on when needed why would you turn the light switch off?
Because the light bulb comes on when you would like it to stay off, obviously.
W
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Andrew Badera wrote:
>
> Assumptions are without historical evidence to constitute your guess.
> Mine's not.
Neither is mine. They got Al Capone on tax evasion, remember? Most
people who are skating right up to the line are going over it
somewhere else.
> What mo
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Badera wrote:
>
> You know what they say about assuming, right?
I'm not sure. Perhaps you can explain how it applies to this example:
"They'll ban an account that's borderline 1st amendment without a
second thought"
To unsubscribe from this group, send em
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Andrew Badera wrote:
>
> Chances are now that it's a visible issue, they'll block it.
I'm betting if they do, it will be for an unrelated reason.
See, people who say these things tend to be all KINDS of unsavoury. If
I had access to this guy's PM logs and IP reco
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:07 PM, neal rauhauser wrote:
>
> What does it take to get this nitwit removed?
Shockingly enough, to the best of my ability to discern, this person
is not violating any of Twitter's rules or terms of service.
I rather like that. Freedom of speech is a principle that me
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Jeffrey Friedl wrote:
>
> Not doing so is just another way you show that you have no respect for
> third-party developers, essentially telling them to get lost.
I find it terribly ironic when people complain that it is somehow
"contempt" when a company does not doc
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 1:42 PM, JDG wrote:
>
> Why wouldn't said developer partners have updated their code 2 weeks ago
> when this was announced?
Three reasons.
A. Irresponsibility. Paying no attention to anything, they have no
clue this is happening and indeed will not even find out what's g
2009/9/20 Nalin Savara :
>
> Tell me: what would your response implying death to spammer achieve..
> Which a 'thread locked and sender blocked ' response would not achieve
It's amusing.
Granted, it's neither mature nor serious to snicker behind your hand
at a snide remark, but it's a lot more fu
2009/9/19 Nalin Savara :
>
> That's true about spam.. But the message 'you do suck at.. ' is
> disgusting and offensive.. And apart from the spammer, even that
> poster should be banned and blacklisted.
If we banned and blacklisted everything disgusting and offensive,
there would be no internet.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Andrew Badera wrote:
>
> TrueTwit is the most valuable, useful, awesome Twitter third-party app I've
> seen in months. Maybe ever.
I particularly love how all you have to do is see one TrueTwit DM, go
sign up for TrueTwit yourself, and stop getting those messages e
You're loading the page via https instead of http. Take the "s" out of the
URL, and you should be fine.
This happens because while you've loaded the *page* via https, the images
are loaded via http. So some of the content is secure, and some is not.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:14 PM, WyattWhy wro
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Paul Kinlan wrote:
>
> You could do the "Stackoverflow" method of quietly silencing/ignoring the
> users that are spamming/abusing the system which is why I suggested not
> sending the "XYZ is now following you" email for people that look like they
> are abusing t
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Dossy Shiobara wrote:
>
> Without the potency of enforcement, what's the point?
Social enforcement is more potent than legal enforcement. If someone
does something you don't like, and you unfollow them, they lose
followers. That's what they wanted on Twitter in th
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Abraham Williams<4bra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey! I have an idea! Lets have tea party!
In Boston!
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Abraham Williams<4bra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How would the CoH be social enforced?
I think there's already social enforcement. You can "d spam @whoever"
or just "@spam @whoever" to make your report. Developers of desktop
clients might consider making a little ma
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Dossy Shiobara wrote:
>
> It's obviously an incredibly thin line ...
It's the same line you walk as a marketer. On the one hand, you want
to provide value to your followers, so they will keep following you.
On the other, you want to extract value efficiently from
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Jesse Stay wrote:
>
> Caliban I agree - I'm simply proposing that my solution for follow limits is
> at least a little better for users than what Twitter is currently doing.
> What is being done currently hurts the legitimate users more than it does
> the spammer
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Andrew Badera wrote:
>
> You should look up the definition of "ghetto" sometime.
According to Wikipedia, it's "a portion of a city in which members of
a minority group live; especially because of social, legal, or
economic pressure" - and a minority group is "a so
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Andrew Badera wrote:
>
> Any
> neighborhood of a particular clustered minor demographic deserves to
> be patrolled?
If the minor demographic in question is "criminals," yes. Any other
qualities of the demographic are coincidental.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Jesse Stay wrote:
>
> Honestly, I can't see any legitimate reason for doing a search for people to
> follow and following more than 200 of those people in a day, other than
> collecting spam lists or trying to build up following numbers, reducing the
> value of tho
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Brant wrote:
>
> Williams, my point is why would a user need to rapidly remove or add
> twitter followers?
Turn that around: why should a user be FORBIDDEN to rapidly remove or
add new followers?
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Doug Williams wrote:
>
> We are aware that many users would like to accept all incoming directs.
Sounds like a checkbox in your profile to me.
24 matches
Mail list logo
