Yes exactly - Twitter doesnt live by a coherent ruleset. It openly
promotes bots yet suspends people without any warning or information.
It opens its doors to be gamed and kicks people out randomly.

This lack of transparant rules is working like a charm isnt it.




On Oct 9, 7:44 pm, Cameron Kaiser <spec...@floodgap.com> wrote:
> > > Openness about abuse is generally counter-productive for everyone. For
> > > example, opaque limits are harder to game and give better detection
> > > signals. Also, practically, limits need to be adjusted without notice
> > > to respond changing attacks. In the end, valid access that is
> > > difficult to distinguish from access overwhelmingly used for invalid
> > > purposes are sometimes, sadly, going to get caught in a low-latency
> > > high-volume countermeasure system.
>
> > How about you just answer my question?
>
> > What you're saying is mankind is wrong to live by well defined and
> > concrete rules.
>
> Um, no. What John is saying is that Twitter doesn't live by them. And,
> considering that Twitter is a relatively new medium, that's pretty much
> by definition.
>
> > Of course the reality is Twitter is another laissez fair bums on seats
> > driven site and as google proved, there is nothing like the abiltiy to
> > change the rules on a whim, or hide a problem for a company of this
> > ilk.
>
> The line for Jaiku starts over there.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------ personal:http://www.cameronkaiser.com/--
>   Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems *www.floodgap.com* ckai...@floodgap.com
> -- Prediction is very difficult, especially ... about the future. -- Niels 
> Bohr

Reply via email to