Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[Taylor Singletary]

Dewald: I'll make that recommendation; I agree that relevant
information should be grouped together as much as possible.

Dean: The link to the support center FAQ on this topic is very clumsy
and long; there are still a number of email clients out there that
don't handle long links very well, besides the convenience of having a
single URL that I can memorize easily when pointing it out to folks.
For those concerned about URL shortening, you can access that FAQ at
http://support.twitter.com/groups/35-business/topics/127-frequently-asked-questions/articles/142161-advertisers#20100525

Taylor Singletary
Developer Advocate, Twitter
http://twitter.com/episod



On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Dewald Pretorius  wrote:
> Taylor,
>
> Perhaps you should ask someone to add the http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq
> link as a further reading reference into the "2. Advertising Around
> Twitter Content" section of the API TOS.
>
> Stuff is very fragmented at the moment, and you have to accidentally
> discover pages on separate domains just to get the full picture.
>
> The same goes for further reading on other sections of the API TOS as
> well.
>
> On May 26, 1:20 pm, Taylor Singletary 
> wrote:
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>> We recently updated our Advertising FAQ to answer many of the
>> questions that you may have.http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq
>>
>> Taylor
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Liz  wrote:
>> > I hope some answers are forthcoming, James. Twitter doesn't seem very
>> > talkative.
>

RE: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[Dean Collins]

Taylor - any reason why you aren't posting the direct url for the
twitter page? 

Seem suspect you don't want to be nailed down in a google cache on the
specifics?



Regards,

Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
d...@cognation.net
+1-212-203-4357   New York
+61-2-9016-5642   (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).


> -Original Message-
> From: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com
[mailto:twitter-development-
> t...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Taylor Singletary
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2010 6:21 PM
> To: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
> 
> Hello Everyone,
> 
> We recently updated our Advertising FAQ to answer many of the
> questions that you may have. http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq
> 
> Taylor
> 
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Liz  wrote:
> > I hope some answers are forthcoming, James. Twitter doesn't seem
very
> > talkative.
> >

Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[Taylor Singletary]

If you have specific questions about the policy, we have an email
address you can send them to: twitter_...@twitter.com

I unfortunately don't have answers for you beyond what's presented in
the FAQ and the Terms of Service.

Taylor

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Dewald Pretorius  wrote:
> Taylor,
>
> Read this part of that FAQ: "Paid Tweets injected into any timeline on
> a service that leverages the Twitter API (other than Promoted Tweets).
> This applies to any Twitter stream, whether user based, search based,
> or other."
>
> Do you realize how confusing that is?
>
> 1) Does it mean I can publish a paid tweet via the API? (I know I can,
> but someone who just reads the FAQ won't be able to figure that out.)
>
> 2) Does it mean I can inject "tweets" into any displayed timeline, as
> long as they are not "paid tweets"? If so, it means I can insert
> entries that look exactly like tweets, except they did not come from
> Twitter and they contain my affiliate link.
>
> You guys really need to sit down and read all these things through the
> eyes of people who are not privy to your internal discussions,
> decisions, and understanding of the matter. And then write your TOS
> and FAQs so that everyone can understand them.
>
> On May 26, 1:20 pm, Taylor Singletary 
> wrote:
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>> We recently updated our Advertising FAQ to answer many of the
>> questions that you may have.http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq
>>
>> Taylor
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Liz  wrote:
>> > I hope some answers are forthcoming, James. Twitter doesn't seem very
>> > talkative.
>

Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[Taylor Singletary]

Hello Everyone,

We recently updated our Advertising FAQ to answer many of the
questions that you may have. http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq

Taylor

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Liz  wrote:
> I hope some answers are forthcoming, James. Twitter doesn't seem very
> talkative.
>

RE: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[Dean Collins]

Dewald, it's because you have amateurs running the zoo that are learning as 
they go.

Honestly my opinion is that it's Twitters rights to change the rules as they go 
- it's their network and their right to do so, but it's also my right as an 
investor in application development to not invest any more time or money on 
Twitter until they bring in a management layer that has experience I building 
ecosystems and knows how to encourage sustainable development.

Can you imagine if salesforce pulled a stunt like this?


Cheers,
Dean


 > -Original Message-
> From: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com [mailto:twitter-development-
> t...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dewald Pretorius
> Sent: Monday, 24 May 2010 9:27 PM
> To: Twitter Development Talk
> Subject: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
> 
> Liz,
> 
> You are 100% correct in summarizing the problem. Not only were those
> businesses built with the full knowledge of Twitter, Twitter even had
> specific rules governing sponsored tweets (had to be clearly marked as
> sponsored, etc.).
> 
> I'm really baffled by this decision of Twitter, because I don't
> understand how they expect to have integrity and trust with developers
> while doing this type of stuff.
> 
> Right now we are all being pointed to Annotations as the holy grail of
> new development. But how do we know that they won't yet again change a
> rule in the future that will kill businesses that were built on top of
> Annotations?
> 
> On May 24, 3:56 pm, Liz  wrote:
> > Peter, I think the problem is that business have been created,
> > received funding and developed over the past year, with the full
> > knowledge of Twitter, and this just undercuts & destroys them.
> >
> > I think people can understand the rationale (and the desire for
> > Twitter to eliminate competition) but this is a policy decision that
> > should have been made over a year ago. Twitter should have included
> > this in an earlier terms of service instead of giving an implicit
> > "okay" to services like Sponsored Tweets which has turned into a
> > successful company.
> >
> > It also seems disingenuous that the blog post says that a "guiding
> > principle" of Twitter is that "We don't seek to control what users
> > tweet. And users own their own tweets." and allow adult-oriented
> > content and photos but for some reason, users can't Tweet ads. That
> > sounds like control of content to me.
> >
> > Liz

RE: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[Steel Sendras Group]

Hey! How are you doing?

   We read your post on “Twitter Development Talk” 
‘Google Group’. You are right that, developing a twitter app individually is a 
very hard work. Or, in crux, it’s really impossible.

   But, please don’t give up. If you still like to create the 
twitter app or want to help in the development work, then you have the option 
to join us!

   We, Steel Sendras Group, is an organization providing various 
non-profit & for-profit services worldwide. And, recently, we want to develop a 
really cool, efficient, smart, reliable twitter app along with other softwares. 
So, you can come on board.

 

We are a community of people working together to make the web a better place.

 

If you think it’s a spam, then please feel free to contact us.

 


 Cheers..


 Steel Sendras Group

 

Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/SteelSendras

 

 

From: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:twitter-development-t...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 
mycro...@lifewithindustry.com
Sent: Tuesday, 25 May, 2010 4:46 pm
To: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

 

 I stopped development on my Twitter app a year after realizing that the 
twitter API was not yet stable enough to allow an individual developer to 
create a stable product. I continue to follow the exchange between developers 
and Twitter as much for entertainment as to keep track. Twitter understands the 
eco-system that is evolving no better than the rest of us but it still wants to 
control and direct the evolution. Each bit of control it exerts trims off 
branches of evolution that do not support the main stem. By cutting off 
branches twitter is possibly denying the evolution of future success.

 

 Original Message 
Subject: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
From: Eric Woodward 
Date: Mon, May 24, 2010 1:34 pm
To: Twitter Development Talk



At this point I am not why anyone that cares enough to be in this
group is surprised. It is clear that Twitter is going to take
*everything* for themselves. I don't understand why anyone would
continue to develop on Twitter's platform as anything more than a
hobby. First it was us (Twitter clients) and now it is the ad
platforms' turn. Next it will be somebody else.

Lots of us enjoy developing for its own sake, and that is what Twitter
is now: a feature you add to something else, or a hobby activity. Time
we all just faced up to it.

--ejw

Eric Woodward
Email: e...@nambu.com



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2895 - Release Date: 05/25/10 
11:56:00

Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[Nick Arnett]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:16 AM,  wrote:

>  I stopped development on my Twitter app a year after realizing that the
> twitter API was not yet stable enough to allow an individual developer to
> create a stable product. I continue to follow the exchange between
> developers and Twitter as much for entertainment as to keep track. Twitter
> understands the eco-system that is evolving no better than the rest of us
> but it still wants to control and direct the evolution. Each bit of control
> it exerts trims off branches of evolution that do not support the main stem.
> By cutting off branches twitter is possibly denying the evolution of future
> success.
>

My experience and thoughts exactly, also.

Nick

Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[Dossy Shiobara]

So, Tweetie for Mac, which shows an ad at the top of my friends timeline
... will no longer be allowed to do so?

http://i.imgur.com/pazT3.png

Is this another misinterpretation of the policy, too?


On 5/25/10 1:28 AM, Ryan Sarver wrote:
> It *does prohibit* an application from calling out to a service to find
> an ad to serve to Liz that will get inserted into the timeline she is
> viewing.
>
> The language is somewhat nuanced but it sounds like we might need to make the 
> policy more explicit as a number of people are misinterpreting it.


-- 
Dossy Shiobara  | do...@panoptic.com | http://dossy.org/
Panoptic Computer Network   | http://panoptic.com/
  "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)

RE: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[mycroftt]

 I stopped development on my Twitter app a year after realizing that the twitter API was not yet stable enough to allow an individual developer to create a stable product. I continue to follow the exchange between developers and Twitter as much for entertainment as to keep track. Twitter understands the eco-system that is evolving no better than the rest of us but it still wants to control and direct the evolution. Each bit of control it exerts trims off branches of evolution that do not support the main stem. By cutting off branches twitter is possibly denying the evolution of future success.
 

 Original Message Subject: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISINGFrom: Eric Woodward Date: Mon, May 24, 2010 1:34 pmTo: Twitter Development TalkAt this point I am not why anyone that cares enough to be in thisgroup is surprised. It is clear that Twitter is going to take*everything* for themselves. I don't understand why anyone wouldcontinue to develop on Twitter's platform as anything more than ahobby. First it was us (Twitter clients) and now it is the adplatforms' turn. Next it will be somebody else.Lots of us enjoy developing for its own sake, and that is what Twitteris now: a feature you add to something else, or a hobby activity. Timewe all just faced up to it.--ejwEric WoodwardEmail: e...@nambu.com

Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

Quoting Ryan Sarver :


I want to make sure this part is clear -- this policy change isn't meant to
say that we are going to start policing if the content of something a user
tweets is an ad or not. The policy change affects 3rd party services that
were putting ads in the middle of a timeline.

So if Liz is paid by Reebok to tweet about how much she loves their new
shoes, we are not going to be policing that any more than we were on Friday.
This policy also *does not prohibit* services like Ad.ly that help
facilitate those relationships or even help her post the ads to her timeline
on her behalf.

It *does prohibit* an application from calling out to a service to find an
ad to serve to Liz that will get inserted into the timeline she is viewing.

The language is somewhat nuanced but it sounds like we might need to make
the policy more explicit as a number of people are misinterpreting it.

Let me know if you have more questions.

Ryan


Ryan, you could do the whole world a *huge* favor and post this (and  
the other similar post) as a comment to Mashable's extracts of today's  
discussion here.


http://mashable.com/2010/05/24/twitter-third-party-ad-networks/




On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Dewald Pretorius  wrote:


Liz,

You are 100% correct in summarizing the problem. Not only were those
businesses built with the full knowledge of Twitter, Twitter even had
specific rules governing sponsored tweets (had to be clearly marked as
sponsored, etc.).

I'm really baffled by this decision of Twitter, because I don't
understand how they expect to have integrity and trust with developers
while doing this type of stuff.

Right now we are all being pointed to Annotations as the holy grail of
new development. But how do we know that they won't yet again change a
rule in the future that will kill businesses that were built on top of
Annotations?

On May 24, 3:56 pm, Liz  wrote:
> Peter, I think the problem is that business have been created,
> received funding and developed over the past year, with the full
> knowledge of Twitter, and this just undercuts & destroys them.
>
> I think people can understand the rationale (and the desire for
> Twitter to eliminate competition) but this is a policy decision that
> should have been made over a year ago. Twitter should have included
> this in an earlier terms of service instead of giving an implicit
> "okay" to services like Sponsored Tweets which has turned into a
> successful company.
>
> It also seems disingenuous that the blog post says that a "guiding
> principle" of Twitter is that "We don't seek to control what users
> tweet. And users own their own tweets." and allow adult-oriented
> content and photos but for some reason, users can't Tweet ads. That
> sounds like control of content to me.
>
> Liz

Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[Ryan Sarver]

I want to make sure this part is clear -- this policy change isn't meant to
say that we are going to start policing if the content of something a user
tweets is an ad or not. The policy change affects 3rd party services that
were putting ads in the middle of a timeline.

So if Liz is paid by Reebok to tweet about how much she loves their new
shoes, we are not going to be policing that any more than we were on Friday.
This policy also *does not prohibit* services like Ad.ly that help
facilitate those relationships or even help her post the ads to her timeline
on her behalf.

It *does prohibit* an application from calling out to a service to find an
ad to serve to Liz that will get inserted into the timeline she is viewing.

The language is somewhat nuanced but it sounds like we might need to make
the policy more explicit as a number of people are misinterpreting it.

Let me know if you have more questions.

Ryan

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Dewald Pretorius  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> You are 100% correct in summarizing the problem. Not only were those
> businesses built with the full knowledge of Twitter, Twitter even had
> specific rules governing sponsored tweets (had to be clearly marked as
> sponsored, etc.).
>
> I'm really baffled by this decision of Twitter, because I don't
> understand how they expect to have integrity and trust with developers
> while doing this type of stuff.
>
> Right now we are all being pointed to Annotations as the holy grail of
> new development. But how do we know that they won't yet again change a
> rule in the future that will kill businesses that were built on top of
> Annotations?
>
> On May 24, 3:56 pm, Liz  wrote:
> > Peter, I think the problem is that business have been created,
> > received funding and developed over the past year, with the full
> > knowledge of Twitter, and this just undercuts & destroys them.
> >
> > I think people can understand the rationale (and the desire for
> > Twitter to eliminate competition) but this is a policy decision that
> > should have been made over a year ago. Twitter should have included
> > this in an earlier terms of service instead of giving an implicit
> > "okay" to services like Sponsored Tweets which has turned into a
> > successful company.
> >
> > It also seems disingenuous that the blog post says that a "guiding
> > principle" of Twitter is that "We don't seek to control what users
> > tweet. And users own their own tweets." and allow adult-oriented
> > content and photos but for some reason, users can't Tweet ads. That
> > sounds like control of content to me.
> >
> > Liz
>

Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[Harshad RJ]

As I interpret it they don't want clients to inject ads in the stream at the
display end. Not at the posting end.




On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Lil Peck  wrote:

> Does this mean that any tweet that promotes any event or item that is
> not free (Such as, "Tickets to the 2011 National Finals Rodeo go on
> sale tomorrow.") violates the TOS?
>



-- 
Harshad RJ
http://hrj.wikidot.com

Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[Lil Peck]

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Liz  wrote:
> And users own their own tweets." and allow adult-oriented
> content and photos but for some reason, users can't Tweet ads. That
> sounds like control of content to me.
>

Amen

Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[Lil Peck]

Does this mean that any tweet that promotes any event or item that is
not free (Such as, "Tickets to the 2011 National Finals Rodeo go on
sale tomorrow.") violates the TOS?

Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING

[Peter Denton]

I want to voice support of this decision.

I build third party apps that are 100% about consuming, purposing, and
displaying tweet streams. If different clients inevitably begin selling
tweet injections, I really don't want to deal with those on my end.
The tweet stream should remain a pure data entity. Dick has already said
apps can opt out of displaying tweets, but if other apps are injecting, I
lose control of that, and it will wreck the integrity of my app. Trust is
ensuring that tweets coming to me through streams, are, to the best of
twitter's ability, not spam.




On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Duane Roelands
wrote:

> > The way this reads, you can't even have a WordPress blog that puts ads
> > near a Twitter stream.  Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting this.
>
> You're misinterpreting it.  There's not a problem if you're displaying
> a Twitter feed on a page and there are ads -near- it.  What is now
> forbidden is the injection of ads into the stream itself.
>