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

Reply via email to