The third alternate approach is that I just STFU and make take the approach of "every man for himself."
On Feb 15, 9:51 pm, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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