> 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).

Wrong.  Basic Authentication will obviously ALWAYS be an option for
desktop clients, regardless of whether or not it is via API.

> 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?

I see, so then sites like mapmyrun and others that, for example, tweet
"Bob ran 10 miles today in 2 hours", "Bob ran 12 miles today in 1
hour", and other templated text, are also in violation of the terms?
Or what about hootsuite where I can queue up 100 tweets with the exact
same text to fire off every hour, perhaps interspersed with a second
tweet?

The bottom line is that this situation isn't as black and white as you
think, and Twitter's approach is wrong-headed.




Reply via email to