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.

Reply via email to