Well, in the last dragnet, http://twitter.com/ricksanchezcnn, http://twitter.com/scottkwalker, http://twitter.com/karlrove were all suspended. And while you might disagree with their politics, it's pretty evident from their tweets that they were not spammers. These well-known personalities (and several others) were quickly restored, but you have to wonder how many non-wellknown, non-spam accounts are now in the weeds waiting for Twitter to restore their accounts.
Too many false positives, and too many unknown rules arbitrarily applied. On Oct 9, 12:05 pm, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote: > As someone who's been a Twitter user since March 2007 or so, and a > developer since late 2007, I have a hard time disagreeing with > anything I've seen from Twitter on spam policies. In general, it seems > to me, if you're not a douchebag, you don't get suspended. With one or > two exceptions in that entire time. > > ∞ Andy Badera > ∞ +1 518-641-1280 > ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private > ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:54 PM, freefall <tehgame...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > >