Thanks for the response Chad. Hoping we can find measures to curb abuse while still allowing responsible use of recurrence as a useful tool for publishers, businesses and their followers who benefit from the consistency/timeliness of the communications.
On 10/13/09 8:28 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. >>
