There appears to be a lack of understanding on the part of Twitter of
the following:

When you create a vacuum, something will fill that vacuum.

Instead of working with me and opting for a solution I offered to them
that would have ensured that recurring tweets never result in
duplicate content from my system, they opted to rather outright ban
recurring tweets.

Okay fine, so now I don't offer that feature. That creates a vacuum. A
whole host of less scrupulous developers are waiting to fill that
vacuum with solutions that will be harder or impossible for Twitter to
detect, creating an even bigger problem for Twitter than they had
before. The fact that this approach of them is hurting my business is
not very encouraging to write another Twitter-related line of code.

Dewald

On Oct 13, 4:45 pm, JDG <ghil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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