Yep, that should have been implicit in my post.

Anti-spam actions should be chiefly aimed at abusive users, rather
than developers.  After all, it may be pretty easy for Twitter to
limit what Web-based apps can do, but won't such behavior just shift
to the Desktop, in even more flagrant and ridiculous flavors?  And
won't legitimate business uses be unfairly taken out (or never get off
the ground) in such developer dragnets?

Sadly, it seems as though a chief impetus behind the OAuth push is for
exactly that reason: to more tightly regulate and limit third-party
Twitter apps.


On Feb 15, 5:24 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well PJB, there is always a completely different approach that Twitter
> could take.
>
> They could bolster their internal coding and defenses against what
> they consider to be abuse, much like they did for duplicate content,
> and then not suspend applications at all.
>
> That way applications can try whatever they want. If they run into a
> Twitter defense, such as a rejected update, then no harm is done on
> either side, except maybe wasted bandwidth and processing resources.
>
> On Feb 15, 9:16 pm, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I sort of hope that Twitter DOESN'T further define their
> > nebulous rules.  Why?  Because when they do, the axe often falls on
> > legitimate app developers (rather than abusive users or problem apps)
> > in really short-sighted ways.  Moreover, their rules are usually
> > blanket pronouncements without regard for important business cases for
> > certain features.
>
> > For example, Twitter used to say that follower "churn" was against
> > their rules.  Okay, that's certainly fair and fine.  But now they've
> > recently changed their rules page (in mid-November, to be exact) to
> > outright ban ALL automated following, except -- bizarrely -- follow-
> > back.
>
> > This is really silly.  It kills an entire functionality space for all
> > apps simply because some uses of it are abusive.
>
> > For example, auto-follow is a hallmark feature of Google Buzz.  It was
> > loudly included in all press mentions of this product.  Namely, in
> > that app, you auto-follow anyone you frequently email with.  (Google
> > has apparently curtailed this feature due to privacy concerns.)  So
> > what about a similar Twitter app that offers this perfectly reasonable
> > feature -- namely, auto-follow anyone that you @tweet more than, say,
> > 10 times.  Will that be banned?  Apparently.  (And there goes the
> > whole CRM market with it!)  Or what about an app that unfollows anyone
> > who tweets spam or swear words?  Nope, such an app is apparently
> > outlawed.
>
> > Twitter should err on the side of allowing developers the freedom to
> > build great apps.  This should mean hand-holding even the smallest app
> > (not just the biggies).  But, more than that, it should mean offering
> > flexibility and good faith when it comes to deciding what's an
> > appropriate use of the Twitter API.  Blanket, mid-stream, and
> > developer-focused restrictions are non-constructive, unfair, and will
> > stifle innovation.
>
> > Many of us support our families with Twitter development; and it is
> > cavalier and bruising to know that developers are apparently not
> > offered at least some level of back-and-forth communication, good
> > faith, and case-by-case leeway when their apps are examined in
> > relation to Twitter rules.
>
> > On Feb 15, 3:36 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I apologize for my choice of words.
>
> > > Now, can we get back to discussing Twitter using OAuth as a mechanism
> > > to heavy-handedly suspend applications as witnessed by the two recent
> > > cases we know of, while measuring the guilt of the application against
> > > nebulous rules that nobody knows exactly what they mean?
>
> > > Please.
>
> > > On Feb 15, 7:17 pm, Cameron Kaiser <spec...@floodgap.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Oh for crying out loud, is everyone now going to stare themselves
> > > > > blind at the phrase "Gestapo-like" and forget about the issue at hand?
> > > > > It is meant to portray a one-sided action where the accused party is
> > > > > not afforded a voice, or his/her objections, rationale, or
> > > > > explanations are ignored.
>
> > > > Then say that instead of throwing bombs. Don't tell me you used the term
> > > > in order to provoke absolutely *no* reaction at all.
>
> > > > --
> > > > ------------------------------------ 
> > > > personal:http://www.cameronkaiser.com/--
> > > >   Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems 
> > > > *www.floodgap.com*ckai...@floodgap.com
> > > > -- This manual has been carefully for errors to make sure correct. -- 
> > > > classiccmp
>
>

Reply via email to