http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Abraham On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 13:51, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Look, it is self-evident by now that this heavy-handed Gestapo-like > action against applications is causing great anxiety in the developer > community. We now have two very recent incidents, one of which was > handled by Brian, who is part of the Platform team. > > For every person who has commented on this thread, there are numerous > others who remain silent out of fear of incurring the wrath of the > Platform team. I know, some of them have emailed me privately about > this. > > Ryan, we need to hear from you, please. > > This is not a good situation, neither for you nor for us, and we > cannot solve this. Only you can. > > On Feb 15, 4:16 pm, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I thought Twitter didn't like bots? If so, why did they apparently > > have one send out suspension warnings? That's at least my conclusion > > given their non-response to questions, at least in that case. > > > > (As well, it seems as though the OAuth push is, at least in part, > > about app policing.) > > > > One would have thought that the Twitter police would be better aimed > > at enacting policies to deal with abuse by end-users, rather than such > > a heavy hand against apps. What's next? TweetDeck is going to be > > banned because they allow single-button duplicate tweets across > > multiple accounts? > > > > Some of us have built businesses and livelihoods around Twitter. It's > > scary to have those things threatened by the possibility of capricious > > enforcement handled by "no questions please" email demands. > > > > On Feb 15, 11:11 am, Abraham Williams <4bra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Sounds like Twitter dropped the ball with notifications. It appears > that > > > Twitter normally does send notifications before suspension as Refollow > [1] > > > got 2 warning. Although Rob had the issue of no response to > clarifications. > > > > > Abraham > > > > > [1] > http://refollow.tumblr.com/post/380619972/weve-been-suspended-by-twitter > > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:34, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Wow. What's really of concern is the capricious approach Twitter > > > > seems to have with app developers. Some apps are given a month to > > > > make a change, some are cut off immediately, some are sent legal > > > > letters, some are contacted beforehand, some aren't. > > > > > > Frankly, there should be no tracking code. If there is an issue, > > > > apart from extreme situations, Twitter should contact the app and, as > > > > they apparently did with socialtoo, give some reasonable period of > > > > time to remedy. > > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:02 am, Peter Denton <petermden...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Twitter should at least send a notification suspension, as well as > a > > > > > tracking code possibly, for both parties benefits, twitter and the > app. > > > > > > > *Reason*: My app was suspended, for something perfectly harmless, > and was > > > > > re-granted permission the next day, but it took a few > communications > > > > with > > > > > twitter to resolve. > > > > > > > This is only going to continue to become more and more frequent. I > would > > > > > hate to envision a team of a few people having to follow up on app > > > > > suspensions w/o reference. > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Dewald Pretorius < > dpr...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > The argument of, "Clearly defining rules helps the spammers > because > > > > > > then they know exactly how to stay just within the boundaries," > holds > > > > > > _absolutely no_ water. > > > > > > > > Imagine you own an ice rink. You draw a circle with a radius of 2 > > > > > > meters on the ice, and make the rule that it's okay to skate > inside > > > > > > the circle, and not okay to skate outside the circle. > > > > > > > > If someone skates right at the edge, at 1.999 meters, all the > time, it > > > > > > _does not matter_ because you have decided that it is okay and > > > > > > acceptable to skate there. > > > > > > > > The same goes with Twitter rules. Make the rules very granular > and > > > > > > very clear. Then, if someone skates just within the fringes, _it > does > > > > > > not matter_ because they are still within what you deem > acceptable. > > > > > > > > And, then _everyone_ knows where is the line between good and bad > > > > > > application behavior, because then it is a fence and not a broad > gray > > > > > > smudge. > > > > > > > > Most app developers are _not_ "the enemy" and most app developers > will > > > > > > be more than happy to not develop or to disable features that > violate > > > > > > the rules. > > > > > > > > If only we can understand the rules. > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:04 am, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 to what Dewald says. > > > > > > > > > We are purposely NOT developing certain features for fear that > > > > Twitter > > > > > > > may suddenly change their rules once again. Is this the sort > of > > > > > > > business environment that Twitter wishes to foster? > > > > > > > > > We had assumed that, at the very least, applications would be > > > > > > > contacted before any sort of action on Twitter's behalf. But > > > > > > > apparently not. And apparently this push for OAuth integration > is > > > > > > > simply a means to more easily cut-off access to certain apps. > > > > > > > > > Ugly. > > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 4:30 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I attempted to make clear that my issue was not with the > guilt or > > > > > > > > innocence of GoTwitr. > > > > > > > > > > It's with the message being sent to all of us when no > communication > > > > > > > > accompanies a suspension. > > > > > > > > > > I'm going to beat the dead horse yet again. With vague and > nebulous > > > > > > > > rules, nobody knows for certain what is allowed and what is > not. > > > > > > > > > > Twitter invite people to build businesses using their system > and > > > > API. > > > > > > > > By providing the platform, extending the invitation, and > making the > > > > > > > > rules, they are also assuming a responsibility. > > > > > > > > > > It is a grave concern that one's business can be terminated > by > > > > Twitter > > > > > > > > with no warning and no explanation, based on some rule that > nobody > > > > > > > > knows for certain exactly what it entails. It would have been > a > > > > > > > > slightly different situation had their rules been as clearly > > > > defined > > > > > > > > as Facebook's rules, but they're not, with intention. > > > > > > > > > > Take follower churn for example. Do I churn followers if I > unfollow > > > > > > > > ten people in a day, and follow five others? Or do I only > churn if > > > > I > > > > > > > > unfollow a hundred? Or is it two hundred? Or, wait, is the > number > > > > > > > > immaterial while my intention puts me in violation or not? If > so, > > > > how > > > > > > > > is my intention discerned? > > > > > > > > > > Take duplicate content for example. If I tweet "Happy New > Year!" > > > > every > > > > > > > > January 1st, is that duplicate content? What about "Good > morning > > > > > > > > tweeps!" every morning? Will my personal and business > accounts be > > > > > > > > suspended if I tweet, "Can't wait for the iPad!" from the > same IP > > > > > > > > address at roughly the same time? What if I did what Guy > Kawasaki > > > > > > > > recommended athttp://bit.ly/jkSA1andtweetedthesametext four > > > > > > > > times a day, will my account be suspended? > > > > > > > > > > These are question my users ask me, and I don't have an > answer for > > > > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 6:51 pm, Tim Haines <tmhai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dewald, > > > > > > > > > > > Try looking in the google cache. I'm surprised it was > allowed to > > > > > > live for > > > > > > > > > as long as it did. > > > > > > > http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:o2N2KuZsuYgJ:www.gotwitr.com/+go. > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > It was basically a spam enabler. > > > > > > > > > > > T. > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Dewald Pretorius < > > > > dpr...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I cannot comment on what Jim's site did or didn't do, > since he > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > pulled all descriptive information from the site. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, it is highly disturbing that applications > are > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > suspended without any notice. This particular site seems > to > > > > have > > > > > > had a > > > > > > > > > > contact form, plus it was OAuth, so the owner could have > been > > > > > > > > > > contacted via the email address on file for the Twitter > user > > > > that > > > > > > owns > > > > > > > > > > the application. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, some apps do stuff that warrant suspension. But, to > just > > > > > > suspend > > > > > > > > > > an app with no communication is bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > If Twitter don't want to give some sites the opportunity > to > > > > correct > > > > > > > > > > transgressive behavior (I know they do communicate in > some > > > > cases), > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > the very least send an email to the owner with, "Your > service > > > > has > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > > suspended because...", and give a clear path and > instructions > > > > on > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > the situation can be remedied as soon as possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm going to say it again, Twitter: Your rules are vague > and > > > > > > nebulous. > > > > > > > > > > Not everyone understands and interprets the rules the way > you > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > internally. > > > > > > > > > > > > You must realize that actions like these sometimes shout > so > > > > loud > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > we cannot hear when you say, "We care about our > developers." > > > > > > > > > > > > Rightly or wrongly, here's a developer who has lost face > with > > > > his > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > > base, and has been in the dark for 4 days now. The > message it > > > > sends > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > us, the other developers, is a very bad message. If you > > > > properly > > > > > > > > > > communicated with Jim, he probably wouldn't even have > posted > > > > about > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 3:56 pm, Jim Fulford <j...@fulford.me> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, I need some help. 4 days ago I started getting > emails > > > > > > from my > > > > > > > > > > > users that they could not login to our site using the > Oauth > > > > > > service. > > > > > > > > > > > I checked my site and it said my application had been > > > > suspended. > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > did not get any email from Twitter, they just > deactivated my > > > > > > > > > > > application so nothing works. I have sent in two > support > > > > > > tickets, but > > > > > > > > > > > gotten no response. 2 days ago, I took my site > > > > > > downwww.gotwitr.com > > > > > > > > > > > so that I would stop getting support email from my > users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have had this site up for 5 months, and I have over > 5000 > > > > users > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > used the service. I am so glad that I have never > charged for > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > service, this would be a nightmare. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If they would let me know what our site, or one of our > users > > > > did > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > get banned, we would be glad to fix it. We have tried > to > > > > make > > > > > > our > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > -- Abraham Williams | Community Advocate | http://abrah.am Project | Out Loud | http://outloud.labs.poseurtech.com This email is: [ ] shareable [x] ask first [ ] private. Sent from Seattle, WA, United States
