"the app in question explicitly offered the option of a recurring
tweet which is a violation of the TOS"

Hang on a second. Please point me to the Twitter Rules where it
clearly said that a recurring tweet is in violation of the TOS.

Even though my app provided users with the ability to have recurring
tweets that would not result in what my understanding and
interpretation was at that time of the meaning of the very vague term
"duplicate content," they ruled "recurring tweets" as off-limits this
Monday in a communication to me.

And in a very patient attempt to be a good Twitter application
developer, I complied and am deactivating that feature. NOW THAT I
KNOW.

Dewald

On Oct 13, 4:16 pm, JDG <ghil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the desktop client uses OAuth (which, if and when they deprecate basic
> auth, will be all), you bet your ass they can regulate desktop clients. All
> they have to do is ban any tweets using the Consumer Secret and Key for that
> app (and any subsequent keys said jackass developer attempts to get after
> previous tokens have been banned).
>
> Furthermore, the app in question explicitly offered the option of a
> recurring tweet which is a violation of the TOS. Regardless of whether or
> not that provides a useful service -- I'm not going to start debating that
> -- the fact of the matter is it *is* a violation of the TOS. Plain and
> simple. Why shouldn't they be "allowed" (as if we have a say what a private
> company does with their own resources) to ban an app that violates the TOS
> with one of their own options?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:54, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Twitter is being incredibly stupid, rash, and short-sighted about
> > this.
>
> > Does AT&T write to Microsoft and say, hey, our network is getting a
> > lot of junk email sent through Microsoft Outlook.  We therefore demand
> > you get rid of the CC and BCC features of that product.  Of course
> > not!
>
> > That Twitter is now focusing on regulating Twitter APPS shows that it
> > has a weak and ineffective user regulation system in place.  It can't
> > effectively police its users, so it decides to go after apps that they
> > (may) use.  Cheap shot.  It's like stopping drunk driving by banning
> > all driving after dark.  Do they really think that that is going to
> > work?  Sure, they can probably slam down Web-based clients that use
> > dedicated, whitelisted IP addresses.  But as I pointed out earlier,
> > this will just shift the behavior, and make it even more nettlesome.
> > Now it will move to desktop clients that they cannot stop (yes, they
> > can still ban individual members for duplicate content, but they
> > cannot stop the sale and use of the desktop client).
>
> > Months ago I emailed Twitter asking them what OUR responsibilities
> > were as app developers.  I think all of us understand and recognize
> > that many of our apps have features that could be abused.  I think
> > many of us are perfectly willing to police our own apps, and work with
> > Twitter to help reign in behavior that isn't acceptable.  But it seems
> > out-of-bounds for Twitter to bypass such a cooperative system, and
> > instead just carte blanche ban a particular app feature that has many
> > legitimate uses.
>
> > On Oct 13, 6:32 am, JDG <ghil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > They can still check for duplicate tweets, and can still suspend accounts
> > > violating the TOS, regardless of client.
>
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 23:23, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I worried about this. Doesn't Twitter realize this will just shift
> > > > things to desktop apps which they have less control over?!?
>
> > > > On Oct 12, 7:24 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Any developer who has included and/or is thinking about including a
> > > > > recurring tweet feature in your app, please take note that they are
> > > > > against Twitter TOS.
>
> > > > > You can read what Twitter wrote to me here:
>
> > > > >http://www.socialoomphblog.com/recurring-tweets/
>
> > > --
> > > Internets. Serious business.
>
> --
> Internets. Serious business.

Reply via email to