I just had one of those *rough edges* brought to my attention that I
think may also have already been alluded to on this thread. Some
users use long URLs as a portion or even their entire tweet. This
tweet technique is being used significantly in tweets about the Gulf
oil spill crisis, for example. (i.e.
The author of such a tweet fully expects that this message will be
conveyed in the tweet itself, by virtue of the message conveyed by the
long URL - not just the URL destination's content. It doesn't sound
like this interesting and useful melding of tweet text and tweet
attachments will be possible any longer after the t.co wrapper
initiative is implemented. That would be a real shame...
Good point Ed, about staying in the game. Fortunately, we can row and
talk at the same time. :)
On Jun 9, 11:47 am, "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <zn...@borasky-
> Quoting Ron B <rbtheron...@gmail.com>:
> > Users are accustomed to the fact that use of *free* services is
> > entirely *as is* and at their own risk, so none of us should feel we
> > have to protect their privacy or their security beyond this original
> > expectation. If they don't like the performance, security, or privacy
> > implications of this change, they'll leave Twitter, just like they
> > left Facebook.
> Ah, but they *aren't* leaving Facebook! They're continuing to join and
> share. Facebook and its hundreds of millions of users are continuing
> to co-evolve. And *when* - not *if* - the FUD brigade realizes it
> can't take Facebook out, it will turn its energies on Twitter. I hope
> as a community / ecosystem / whatever, we're ready for that.
> > But that is ultimately Twitter's responsibility to
> > control and react to. Our responsibility is to keep rowing
> > collectively in the same direction, or get off the boat. :)
> Well, to the extent that it's possible, sure. But "groupthink" can
> kill a product / service too. There are clearly some *technical* rough
> edges on link wrapping that need to be discussed / debated.