Oh. Good point. Tom
On 8/14/10 7:22 PM, Ken wrote: > If they can't get to Twitter even once, then the point of the original > argument is lost as they need to set up a Twitter account in the first > place. > > Perhaps the OP should obtain permission from Twitter to create > accounts for persons affected by censorship and then facilitate their > access through his app. > > On Aug 14, 6:20 pm, Tom van der Woerdt <i...@tvdw.eu> wrote: >> Simple answer: because people in china can't even get to twitter.com *once*. >> >> Tom >> >> On 8/14/10 4:37 PM, Ken wrote: >> >>> Why is this an issue? >> >>> A few months ago, someone from Twitter I believe suggested a pattern >>> such as this: >> >>> User starts to create an account on your site >>> To enable the Twitter integration, you send them to Twitter.com *once* >>> where they allow your app. >>> You store their token and log the user in to your site with a >>> temporary password you generate, that they can change. You might >>> collect their email address this way. >>> From then on, they never have to go to Twitter.com. They can interact >>> with Twitter via your app, using your website, email, sms, etc. >> >>> Of course, with the massive use of your site that you claim, it won't >>> be long before your site is listed by Websense and the various evil >>> governments mentioned above. >> >>> On Aug 14, 1:04 am, TheGuru <jsort...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Is there no one from Twitter proper who has a position regarding this? >> >>>> On Aug 13, 2:12 pm, TheGuru <jsort...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> Add that to the list of even more reasons why this is an issue. >> >>>>> However, even stating oh well, tell them to use their cell phones, >>>>> obviously isn't a solution of any degree. Smart Phone penetration in >>>>> the US, for example, is still less than 20%... >> >>>>> On Aug 13, 9:43 am, earth2marsh <ma...@earth2marsh.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> At least "people at work" have the potential to use phones to access >>>>>> Twitter >> >>>>>> I'm worried about users like those in China behind The Great Firewall. >>>>>> Currently, they can interact with Twitter by using proxies and http >>>>>> basic auth. But OAuth requires access to twitter.com (or some sort of >>>>>> mediation). xAuth could be a solution, but there is already a shortage >>>>>> of clients that support alternate endpoints, and some of those use >>>>>> OAuth instead of xAuth (or neither). >> >>>>>> When basic auth is shut off, who knows how many Chinese voices will >>>>>> fall silent or in North Korea. Or in Iran. Or in ? >> >>>>>> I'm interested in hearing what others think about this. >> >>>>>> Marsh >> >>>>>> On Aug 12, 10:31 pm, TheGuru <jsort...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> I'm curious to post this question to see if Twitter has fully thought >>>>>>> out the impact of forcing OAuth onto their API applications. While it >>>>>>> may appear to be a more secure method preferred in principle by users, >>>>>>> the fact of the matter is that one of the main benefits of the API, is >>>>>>> the ability for third party twitter alternatives to be created, thus >>>>>>> allowing people to tweet during "business hours", when they normally >>>>>>> could not due to firewall / web sense restrictions, etc, that prevent >>>>>>> them from accessing the twitter.com domain. >> >>>>>>> Via basic authentication, users would never have to visit twitter.com >>>>>>> to login and gain access to twitter functionality via api clients. By >>>>>>> shutting this down, you are now forcing ALL potential users to login >>>>>>> via twitter.com, many of which do not have access to this domain in >>>>>>> their workplace environment, thus excluding them from easily using >>>>>>> your service wholesale. >> >>>>>>> This can / will, I suspect, have significant impact on twitter usage / >>>>>>> volume, unless I am missing something and there is an alternative the >>>>>>> does not require them to directly access the twitter.com domain to >>>>>>> grant access. >> >>
