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" <> 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 <> 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 <> 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 <> 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 <> 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 <> 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 <>
>>>> 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 <> 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.

Reply via email to