Thank you Chad, that is comforting to know. Dewald
On Oct 13, 10:28 pm, Chad Etzel <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
