Oh. Good point.


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.

Reply via email to