Chad, Perhaps it will behoove the "powers that be" to actually speak to some of us developers to discover the ways people are using Twitter. When decisions are made from the isolation of the glass bubble of the Twitter Head Office, without really knowing what the USERS want, stuff like this ensues.
Dewald On Oct 13, 10:28 pm, Chad Etzel <c...@twitter.com> 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 <dpr...@gmail.com> 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 <ghil...@gmail.com> 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 <dpr...@gmail.com> 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 <justyn.how...@gmail.com> 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 <ghil...@gmail.com> 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 <dpr...@gmail.com> > >> > 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 <ghil...@gmail.com> 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.
