Believe it or not, I've been reading every post on this thread with great intent. I have been proxying major points to "powers that be" and started an internal discussion on the topic at hand. The resulting decisions and policies that may be made/enforced from these discussions is, how do you say, "above my pay grade."
We do listen to these threads as long as the discussion remains constructive, which this one has. -Chad On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Dewald Pretorius <[email protected]> wrote: > > The only Twitter participation we've had thus far on this unfortunate > matter was Chad aging 10 years in 10 seconds over the idea that > someone can write a desktop or browser script that scrapes the login > page and then do whatever the hell it pleases (you know, like posting > something awful like recurring tweets). > > The sad thing is this. Selected people at Twitter are very familiar > with my level of cooperation with them. Believe it or not, there are > people in Twitter who actually view me as "one of the good guys". > > With my users having a recurring tweet feature available to them, and > with the cooperation of Twitter and suitable information from Twitter, > I could have contained the matter programmatically. > > But, with what essentially amounts as a flat-out rejection of my offer > to cooperate and change my system to prevent duplicate tweets, they > have now sent all those users off somewhere else, into the loving arms > of people who couldn't give a shit about working with Twitter, and > have in essence unleashed recurring tweet hell on themselves. > > The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly magically > disappeared. Let me repeat that. Hopefully someone in Twitter will > take notice. The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly > magically disappeared. > > Dewald > > On Oct 13, 9:22 pm, JDG <[email protected]> wrote: >> I dunno. It'd be nice. I personally like rearranging deck chairs like this. >> It was civil and, hopefully, productive. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 17:39, Dewald Pretorius <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I often wonder whether our non-API musings here on these forums have >> > any effect on anything, or are we just amusing ourselves by >> > rearranging deck chairs? >> >> > Dewald >> >> > On Oct 13, 8:03 pm, Justyn <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > If duplicate tweets are the concern, then why are RT's on their way to >> > > being a feature? >> >> > > Abuse is the concern. Not duplicate content, right? >> >> > > So a local restaurant can't setup a tweet to go out on Wednesdays to >> > > remind their followers of 1/2 off appetizers? There's no ill intent >> > > here, and they have businesses to run. Doesn't twitter want businesses >> > > to foster it's platform? There's valid uses for recurring content >> > > within reason. It's not realistic to ask users to come up with 52 >> > > unique headlines, hunt down the associated link and fire up the laptop >> > > prior to happy to hour every Wednesday at 6:00 in order to get a >> > > message out to people who opted to follow them. >> >> > > What's the happy-medium here? >> >> > > On Oct 13, 4:00 pm, JDG <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > They already do that ... in SOME cases. Pharmacies are required (or >> > maybe >> > > > simply strongly encouraged) to sell OTC meds like Sudafed behind the >> > counter >> > > > because some people use that to make crystal meth. The government >> > requires a >> > > > waiting period on guns because some people use guns to murder people. >> >> > > > Rightly or wrongly -- and I seriously believe you did this with no >> > abusive >> > > > intent -- you provided a tool that made it very easy for users to post >> > > > duplicate tweets. They didn't shut you down. They gave you a stern >> > warning. >> >> > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:39, Dewald Pretorius <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> > > > > Now there is an excellent analogy, which begs the question, "Where is >> > > > > the user's responsibility in this?" >> >> > > > > I have very clearly warned my users, every time they enter a tweet, >> > > > > that they must adhere to the Twitter Rules, with hyperlinks to those >> > > > > rules. That was not good enough. >> >> > > > > So, with your analogy in mind, should the authorities pull over >> > > > > speeders, or should they shut down manufacturers that make vehicles >> > > > > that can exceed the speed limit? Or, in a different analogy, should >> > > > > the government shut down Home Depot because they sell chain saws and >> > > > > box cutters, and some people use chain saws and box cutters to murder >> > > > > other human beings? >> >> > > > > Dewald >> >> > > > > On Oct 13, 5:31 pm, JDG <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > Yes, and should be treated as such. I personally detest all those >> > stupid >> > > > > > twitter-based games. Point is, with Twitter's userbase, some get >> > through >> > > > > the >> > > > > > cracks. Don't like it, report it. This is like complaining that >> > cops only >> > > > > > pull over SOME speeders. Yeah, some are going to get through the >> > cracks. >> >> > > > -- >> > > > Internets. Serious business. >> >> -- >> Internets. Serious business. >
