> 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.
