I could not agree more! I was about to write the same when I saw this message.
I do not mind changing the Read/Write on my apps page. I do not even mind having to change my app to allow 'Re-connect' to re-authenticate. Even though it is a pain (but it is done at least). I DO mind now having to live with many many users not reading our mail about having to re-authenticate and then being angry with my company. They'll even be angry at us and confused that they have to re-auth if they do read the email, since they knew what they were doing when they auth'd in the first place. Twitter: Please grandfather in old users who've accepted that their DMs are being sent and received by our apps. It will save us and our users from a lot of headache. Thanks, Mark Krieger, Mediaroost @mediaroost, home of TweetRoost On May 18, 4:27 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > The more I think about this, the less it makes any sense whatsoever to > force everyone through a re-authentication if DM access is required. > > Here's why: > > 1) For existing user tokens, the users have already granted access > with the knowledge that it is to their DMs as well. In other words, > they have already granted access to their DMs. > > 2) If an app needs access to the users' DMs, it is going to force > thousands of people to waste thousands of hours to re-authorize > something they want the app to do and something they have already > implicitly granted to the app. > > 3) Many users are going to miss the memo, and then be very upset with > the app owner(s) because what had worked before suddenly stopped > working. > > 4) Additional and completely unnecessary workload and costs are going > to be added to the support staff of the app, to help users who do not > understand why they need to re-authorize, or who have missed the memo > in the first place. > > 5) By forcing re-authorization for apps that require DM access and > already have DM access, Twitter gains absolutely nothing. After > forcing thousands of people through a redundant process, we're back at > where we started, namely, the app has access to the user's DMs. It's > not like the user has a choice of not granting a requesting app access > to his DMs, but only to his followers and tweets. If the app request > DM access, the user can either grant it, or deny access completely. > Exactly the same way it works today. > > The only benefit here is for apps who don't need DM access, which will > now be able to request account access without DM access. But, if the > app does not need or use access to DMs, it provides absolutely no > benefit to take existing DM access of already granted user tokens > away. It is not used. > > It makes perfect sense to implement this change from a date going > forward, meaning all user tokens granted after that date will be > either Read, Read & Write, or Read & Write & DM. That provides more > transparency for the user. But to yank away existing access rights and > then force the equivalent of a small nation through a re- > authentication process just to re-establish what had already been > granted and then unilaterally taken away, that makes no sense at all. -- Twitter developer documentation and resources: https://dev.twitter.com/doc API updates via Twitter: https://twitter.com/twitterapi Issues/Enhancements Tracker: https://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list Change your membership to this group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/twitter-development-talk