For me it is not about regimes or dictatorships. For me it is about
not giving users a tool when they cannot get any clear and
authoritative guidance on safely using that tool.

Some folks are charging them money for courses and ebooks that teach
them how to do following churn, and they are none the wiser that it is
going to get their accounts suspended. I'm not going to give them
something that will accelerate them down that slippery slope.


On Aug 11, 10:27 am, David Fisher <tib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IDOLPeeps,
> I feel you're being overly alarmist and haven't painted the situation
> properly.
> You can unfollow anyone you want. The issue is a quick follow and then
> unfollowing if not reciprocated. You're *supposed* to follow someone
> because you want to hear what they are saying, not because you want
> them to hear what you say. People were churning in attempts to gather
> mass numbers of followers. A lot of the MLM types did a good job at
> this and soon had 20, 40, or even 60K followers. Now they are clamping
> down.
> Comparing the situation/rules to communist regimes or dictatorships is
> a straw man argument and uncalled for. Surely given another post or
> two and this would be a comparison to Hitler, fulfilling Godwin's law
> of the internetz.
> I'm speculating, but I have to wonder more about your friends that
> were banned. Did they do exactly as Scoble (were they active members
> for over two years and offering massive community contribution?)? Were
> they following people prior to unfollowing? I know Scoble isn't going
> on massive following kicks. Scoble's intentions were also made very
> clear. Did your friends make their intentions clear? Had they been
> following and unfollowing people a lot?
> The other day I unfollowed about 30% of the people I was following. No
> ban. They aren't playing favorites. They are looking at multiple
> factors. If you're acting like a spammer, then you'll be treated like
> one.
> Churning and spam following is being cracked down on. Instead, grow
> slowly, naturally and contribute to the community.
> -Davidhttp://WebEcologyProject.org
> On Aug 11, 8:34 am, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I follow a simple principle in TweetLater.
> > Where Twitter rules are clearly spelled out, such as for spam, I give
> > the users a hammer and caution them, "Carefully read the rules because
> > you can drive a nail into wood, but you can also smash your thumb to a
> > pulp with this thing."
> > Where Twitter rules are nebulous, such as for unfollow, I do not give
> > them a tool, because they wouldn't know (and neither would I) how to
> > use it properly and safely.
> > Dewald
> > On Aug 11, 8:42 am, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 11, 3:11 am, TFT Media <tftmedia1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > For its auto-follow, tweetlater.com specifically states: "[w]e have
> > > > limits in place to ensure that your daily following remains well
> > > > within the limits imposed by Twitter."  So you are presumably touching
> > > > the rate limit then going back -1, -2, -3, or whatever.
> > > You pulled that snippet from my feature that finds potential new
> > > friends based on user-selected keywords. That snippet simply means
> > > that the user can pause that feature when her account reaches the
> > > point where she would not be able to follow more people anyway. And
> > > no, my system absolutely does NOT then unfollow to "make room for
> > > more".
> > > Here is what I very publicly said about bulk unfollow:
> > >http://bit.ly/JM3as
> > > Dewald

Reply via email to