I'm not debating that there might have been some confusion. I wasn't implying that you were irresponsible or malicious when building your app, and I commend you for taking appropriate measures when contacted by Twitter. It's now precedent, though, that it is a violation of the TOS, regardless of how you read the document.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 13:29, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "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. > -- Internets. Serious business.