John, With reference to "used for invalid purposes" in your post.
That begs the question, what exactly constitute invalid purposes? >From a Twitter purist's point of view, anything other than "What are you doing?" constitutes an invalid purpose. I'd venture to say that very few people use Twitter for "What are you doing?" No way do I want to or need to tell a few thousand strangers (and have it indexed by Google) where I am right now, what I am doing right now, or what I am having for lunch. Facebook is a far better platform for that, where one has privacy and a hand-picked audience who just might care. Twitter created a platform that is ideally suited for the marketers and mega-phones. Why else would people actually spend money to buy followers, and get involved in all kinds of schemes to acquire more followers? Because the way your platform works enables and encourages that type of purpose. When you find yourself spending many frustrating hours of fighting "invalid use," you are in effect fighting the animal that Twitter created. One cannot be angry with users when they use the service in unforeseen ways, especially when the service enables that type of use. The easiest way to fight invalid use is to change Twitter so that only "valid use" is possible. When Facebook realized that they were enabling the mega-phone type, they quickly changed their system to discourage that use by limiting the number of friends one can have. You either have to do that, or you have to expand your definition of valid use, and rejoice in the success it brings you when people use your service in unexpected and unanticipated ways. By having a flexible platform that encourages many purposes and trying to limit those purposes only to what you deem valid, you are forever going to fight a losing battle. And, you are laying down rich soil for the competition to germinate. If every who does not stick to "What are you doing?" abandoned Twitter today, you will be back to where you were in your early days in terms of size and relevance. Dewald On Oct 9, 2:07 pm, John Kalucki <jkalu...@gmail.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. > > -John Kaluckihttp://twitter.com/jkalucki > Services, Twitter Inc. > > On Oct 9, 5:23 am, SuperCerial <s...@cyberdyneseo.com> wrote: > > > Absolutely true. on both counts... > > > However, not so long ago Twitter banned many accounts by mistake > > because they used tweetlater. > > > The trouble is on one hand Twitter supports, encourages the creation > > of these applications and on the other hand fails horribly to provide > > sufficient guidelines about their use. I know one of the accounts was > > purely posting quotes of a dead comedian, and this went down very well > > - had a big following of people who regularly responded positively. > > Account status today? Suspended. Why? Who knows. Who is being asked > > about this? Me. > > > It is not up to the 600 individuals to contact Twitter but rather for > > Twitter to explain what is changing so people can ensure they are > > within these new parameters. > > > On Oct 9, 10:07 am, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Abraham Williams <4bra...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > Twitter's spam flagging system is an ever-changing trade secret. It is > > > > unlikely that you will get a direct answer. Have the 600 account holders > > > > contact Twitter support and hopefully they will get re-enabled quickly. > > > > Abraham > > > > Or, in the event that they ARE spammers, hopefully they WON'T. People > > > writing, selling or hosting multiple-account management software need > > > to become a LOT more circumspect in who they serve as clientele, and > > > how precisely they serve them. There is a TON of abuse here, and > > > greedy people need to learn a lesson. > > > > Not saying that's the case with the OP, but I'm EXTREMELY happy to see > > > more aggressive filtering going on! (And looking forward to the > > > Address Book!) > > > > ∞ Andy Badera > > > ∞ +1 518-641-1280 > > > ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private > > > ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera