[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Taylor, I'm glad Twitter thought to do this, but it still doesn't explain as clearly as Ryan's post here about what's acceptable and what's not. Not Acceptable: Paid Tweets injected into any timeline on a service that leverages the Twitter API (other than Promoted Tweets). This applies to any Twitter stream, whether user based, search based, or other. This makes it sound like Ryan was wrong, and actually confuses the issue again. From Ryan: This policy also *does not prohibit* services like Ad.ly that help facilitate those relationships or even help her post the ads to her timeline on her behalf. These sound like they are conflicting. Is Ryan correct, or not? What would also be helpful is a link to information on how the Promoted Tweets rev share works. On May 26, 9:20 am, Taylor Singletary taylorsinglet...@twitter.com wrote: Hello Everyone, We recently updated our Advertising FAQ to answer many of the questions that you may have.http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq Taylor On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: I hope some answers are forthcoming, James. Twitter doesn't seem very talkative.
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Mo, I think the word injected is causing the confusion. As I understand it it means: - I pull a list of tweets from the API into an array. - Before displaying the list to the user, I inject entries that look like tweets (but are actually entries I get paid to display) into that array. - Then I display the list to the user making it look as if everything in the list came from Twitter. As I said, that's how I understand it. But with that understanding, it does not make sense why Dick was going on about the infrastructure cost of Twitter, because this injection does not impact Twitter's infrastructure at all. It all happens exclusively on the application's server or the desktop or mobile device. Anyway, hopefully at some point in time there will be an authoritative and unambiguous explanation from Twitter. On May 27, 10:16 am, Mo maur...@moluv.com wrote: Taylor, I'm glad Twitter thought to do this, but it still doesn't explain as clearly as Ryan's post here about what's acceptable and what's not. Not Acceptable: Paid Tweets injected into any timeline on a service that leverages the Twitter API (other than Promoted Tweets). This applies to any Twitter stream, whether user based, search based, or other. This makes it sound like Ryan was wrong, and actually confuses the issue again. From Ryan: This policy also *does not prohibit* services like Ad.ly that help facilitate those relationships or even help her post the ads to her timeline on her behalf. These sound like they are conflicting. Is Ryan correct, or not? What would also be helpful is a link to information on how the Promoted Tweets rev share works. On May 26, 9:20 am, Taylor Singletary taylorsinglet...@twitter.com wrote: Hello Everyone, We recently updated our Advertising FAQ to answer many of the questions that you may have.http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq Taylor On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: I hope some answers are forthcoming, James. Twitter doesn't seem very talkative.
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Dewald, Thanks for the clarification. What you're saying makes sense and is in line with what Ryan was saying. I hope you're right. On May 27, 2:35 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Mo, I think the word injected is causing the confusion. As I understand it it means: - I pull a list of tweets from the API into an array. - Before displaying the list to the user, I inject entries that look like tweets (but are actually entries I get paid to display) into that array. - Then I display the list to the user making it look as if everything in the list came from Twitter. As I said, that's how I understand it. But with that understanding, it does not make sense why Dick was going on about the infrastructure cost of Twitter, because this injection does not impact Twitter's infrastructure at all. It all happens exclusively on the application's server or the desktop or mobile device. Anyway, hopefully at some point in time there will be an authoritative and unambiguous explanation from Twitter. On May 27, 10:16 am, Mo maur...@moluv.com wrote: Taylor, I'm glad Twitter thought to do this, but it still doesn't explain as clearly as Ryan's post here about what's acceptable and what's not. Not Acceptable: Paid Tweets injected into any timeline on a service that leverages the Twitter API (other than Promoted Tweets). This applies to any Twitter stream, whether user based, search based, or other. This makes it sound like Ryan was wrong, and actually confuses the issue again. From Ryan: This policy also *does not prohibit* services like Ad.ly that help facilitate those relationships or even help her post the ads to her timeline on her behalf. These sound like they are conflicting. Is Ryan correct, or not? What would also be helpful is a link to information on how the Promoted Tweets rev share works. On May 26, 9:20 am, Taylor Singletary taylorsinglet...@twitter.com wrote: Hello Everyone, We recently updated our Advertising FAQ to answer many of the questions that you may have.http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq Taylor On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: I hope some answers are forthcoming, James. Twitter doesn't seem very talkative.
RE: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Dewald, it's because you have amateurs running the zoo that are learning as they go. Honestly my opinion is that it's Twitters rights to change the rules as they go - it's their network and their right to do so, but it's also my right as an investor in application development to not invest any more time or money on Twitter until they bring in a management layer that has experience I building ecosystems and knows how to encourage sustainable development. Can you imagine if salesforce pulled a stunt like this? Cheers, Dean -Original Message- From: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com [mailto:twitter-development- t...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dewald Pretorius Sent: Monday, 24 May 2010 9:27 PM To: Twitter Development Talk Subject: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING Liz, You are 100% correct in summarizing the problem. Not only were those businesses built with the full knowledge of Twitter, Twitter even had specific rules governing sponsored tweets (had to be clearly marked as sponsored, etc.). I'm really baffled by this decision of Twitter, because I don't understand how they expect to have integrity and trust with developers while doing this type of stuff. Right now we are all being pointed to Annotations as the holy grail of new development. But how do we know that they won't yet again change a rule in the future that will kill businesses that were built on top of Annotations? On May 24, 3:56 pm, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, I think the problem is that business have been created, received funding and developed over the past year, with the full knowledge of Twitter, and this just undercuts destroys them. I think people can understand the rationale (and the desire for Twitter to eliminate competition) but this is a policy decision that should have been made over a year ago. Twitter should have included this in an earlier terms of service instead of giving an implicit okay to services like Sponsored Tweets which has turned into a successful company. It also seems disingenuous that the blog post says that a guiding principle of Twitter is that We don't seek to control what users tweet. And users own their own tweets. and allow adult-oriented content and photos but for some reason, users can't Tweet ads. That sounds like control of content to me. Liz
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
The more I think about this situation, the less I like it. At first I was happy that the service I work on was not banned by this ToS change. Even though we use twitter data for monetisation, we don't insert data into timelines. However, when I look at the services that have now been banned, I can't see any warning signs other than that they were competing with Twitter for monetising their data. This is what my service does. Even though it's not currently banned, doesn't it make sense to abandon development now? The best I can hope for it that it *isn't* wildly successful, so Twitter doesn't consider it competition... Every time I read Twitter's explanation for the situation, it reads as we know our monetisation strategy can't compete with third parties in the short term, so we're banning all competition. Hardly conducive to fostering the best solutions, particularly when Twitter will always have the upper hand with their official monetisation platform and analytics for resonance, anyway. What's even worse is the the new ToS is *still* completely ambiguous. Until I saw Peter's post here I had no idea that the ban was only in the publishing end, not insertion. Of course all this makes sense from Twitter's perspective, but for third parties... that just leaves us on an ever changing playing field with invisible goals. I could have lived with rules and rev share additions, but completely banning competition... not so much. Concerned. James PS what's the point of this paragraph from the blog post? We understand that for a few of these companies, the new Terms of Service prohibit activities in which they’ve invested time and money. We will continue to move as quickly as we can to deliver the Annotations capability to the market so that developers everywhere can create innovative new business solutions on the growing Twitter platform. a slap in the face? We understand that we've wasted your time and money, so here's the next thing for you to waste time and money on. No guarantees, no apologies. On May 26, 6:07 pm, Dean Collins d...@cognation.net wrote: Dewald, it's because you have amateurs running the zoo that are learning as they go. Honestly my opinion is that it's Twitters rights to change the rules as they go - it's their network and their right to do so, but it's also my right as an investor in application development to not invest any more time or money on Twitter until they bring in a management layer that has experience I building ecosystems and knows how to encourage sustainable development. Can you imagine if salesforce pulled a stunt like this? Cheers, Dean -Original Message- From: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com [mailto:twitter-development- t...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dewald Pretorius Sent: Monday, 24 May 2010 9:27 PM To: Twitter Development Talk Subject: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING Liz, You are 100% correct in summarizing the problem. Not only were those businesses built with the full knowledge of Twitter, Twitter even had specific rules governing sponsored tweets (had to be clearly marked as sponsored, etc.). I'm really baffled by this decision of Twitter, because I don't understand how they expect to have integrity and trust with developers while doing this type of stuff. Right now we are all being pointed to Annotations as the holy grail of new development. But how do we know that they won't yet again change a rule in the future that will kill businesses that were built on top of Annotations? On May 24, 3:56 pm, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, I think the problem is that business have been created, received funding and developed over the past year, with the full knowledge of Twitter, and this just undercuts destroys them. I think people can understand the rationale (and the desire for Twitter to eliminate competition) but this is a policy decision that should have been made over a year ago. Twitter should have included this in an earlier terms of service instead of giving an implicit okay to services like Sponsored Tweets which has turned into a successful company. It also seems disingenuous that the blog post says that a guiding principle of Twitter is that We don't seek to control what users tweet. And users own their own tweets. and allow adult-oriented content and photos but for some reason, users can't Tweet ads. That sounds like control of content to me. Liz
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
I hope some answers are forthcoming, James. Twitter doesn't seem very talkative.
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Hello Everyone, We recently updated our Advertising FAQ to answer many of the questions that you may have. http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq Taylor On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: I hope some answers are forthcoming, James. Twitter doesn't seem very talkative.
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Taylor, Read this part of that FAQ: Paid Tweets injected into any timeline on a service that leverages the Twitter API (other than Promoted Tweets). This applies to any Twitter stream, whether user based, search based, or other. Do you realize how confusing that is? 1) Does it mean I can publish a paid tweet via the API? (I know I can, but someone who just reads the FAQ won't be able to figure that out.) 2) Does it mean I can inject tweets into any displayed timeline, as long as they are not paid tweets? If so, it means I can insert entries that look exactly like tweets, except they did not come from Twitter and they contain my affiliate link. You guys really need to sit down and read all these things through the eyes of people who are not privy to your internal discussions, decisions, and understanding of the matter. And then write your TOS and FAQs so that everyone can understand them. On May 26, 1:20 pm, Taylor Singletary taylorsinglet...@twitter.com wrote: Hello Everyone, We recently updated our Advertising FAQ to answer many of the questions that you may have.http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq Taylor On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: I hope some answers are forthcoming, James. Twitter doesn't seem very talkative.
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
If you have specific questions about the policy, we have an email address you can send them to: twitter_...@twitter.com I unfortunately don't have answers for you beyond what's presented in the FAQ and the Terms of Service. Taylor On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Taylor, Read this part of that FAQ: Paid Tweets injected into any timeline on a service that leverages the Twitter API (other than Promoted Tweets). This applies to any Twitter stream, whether user based, search based, or other. Do you realize how confusing that is? 1) Does it mean I can publish a paid tweet via the API? (I know I can, but someone who just reads the FAQ won't be able to figure that out.) 2) Does it mean I can inject tweets into any displayed timeline, as long as they are not paid tweets? If so, it means I can insert entries that look exactly like tweets, except they did not come from Twitter and they contain my affiliate link. You guys really need to sit down and read all these things through the eyes of people who are not privy to your internal discussions, decisions, and understanding of the matter. And then write your TOS and FAQs so that everyone can understand them. On May 26, 1:20 pm, Taylor Singletary taylorsinglet...@twitter.com wrote: Hello Everyone, We recently updated our Advertising FAQ to answer many of the questions that you may have.http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq Taylor On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: I hope some answers are forthcoming, James. Twitter doesn't seem very talkative.
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Sponsored Tweets at least announced that the content was advertising. I think this language will just lead to advertising without proper disclosure by the user (which was used in keeping with the FTC ruling on this issue). Some celebs bloggers will still accept money Tweet about products, just without indicating publicly that they've been paid. Also, you say We don't seek to control what users Tweet but that's exactly what you are doing by preventing users from Tweeting advertisement should they wish to. I know you can set whatever rules you like regardless of how they affect people or developers but don't make a ban on using Tweets for certain kinds of content and then say that you're not trying to control the content. Clearly, that is what you're doing. That's what a ban is, exerting your control over content. In my opinion, you've picked the wrong target. I'm also not sure how paid Tweets by individual users is any different from commercial/organization accounts using Twitter to offer discounts, specials, sales, etc. Why does the advertising ban apply to individuals and not to companies? Liz Pullen
RE: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Taylor - any reason why you aren't posting the direct url for the twitter page? Seem suspect you don't want to be nailed down in a google cache on the specifics? Regards, Dean Collins Cognation Inc d...@cognation.net +1-212-203-4357 New York +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial). +44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial). -Original Message- From: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com [mailto:twitter-development- t...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Taylor Singletary Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2010 6:21 PM To: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING Hello Everyone, We recently updated our Advertising FAQ to answer many of the questions that you may have. http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq Taylor On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: I hope some answers are forthcoming, James. Twitter doesn't seem very talkative.
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Taylor, Perhaps you should ask someone to add the http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq link as a further reading reference into the 2. Advertising Around Twitter Content section of the API TOS. Stuff is very fragmented at the moment, and you have to accidentally discover pages on separate domains just to get the full picture. The same goes for further reading on other sections of the API TOS as well. On May 26, 1:20 pm, Taylor Singletary taylorsinglet...@twitter.com wrote: Hello Everyone, We recently updated our Advertising FAQ to answer many of the questions that you may have.http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq Taylor On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: I hope some answers are forthcoming, James. Twitter doesn't seem very talkative.
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Dewald: I'll make that recommendation; I agree that relevant information should be grouped together as much as possible. Dean: The link to the support center FAQ on this topic is very clumsy and long; there are still a number of email clients out there that don't handle long links very well, besides the convenience of having a single URL that I can memorize easily when pointing it out to folks. For those concerned about URL shortening, you can access that FAQ at http://support.twitter.com/groups/35-business/topics/127-frequently-asked-questions/articles/142161-advertisers#20100525 Taylor Singletary Developer Advocate, Twitter http://twitter.com/episod On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Taylor, Perhaps you should ask someone to add the http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq link as a further reading reference into the 2. Advertising Around Twitter Content section of the API TOS. Stuff is very fragmented at the moment, and you have to accidentally discover pages on separate domains just to get the full picture. The same goes for further reading on other sections of the API TOS as well. On May 26, 1:20 pm, Taylor Singletary taylorsinglet...@twitter.com wrote: Hello Everyone, We recently updated our Advertising FAQ to answer many of the questions that you may have.http://bit.ly/twitter-ad-faq Taylor On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: I hope some answers are forthcoming, James. Twitter doesn't seem very talkative.
RE: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
I stopped development on my Twitter appa year after realizing that the twitter API was not yet stable enough to allow an individual developer to create a stable product. I continue to follow the exchange between developers and Twitter as much for entertainment as to keep track. Twitter understands the eco-system that is evolving no better than the rest of us but it still wants to control and direct the evolution. Each bit of control it exerts trims off branches of evolution that do not support the main stem. By cutting off branches twitter is possibly denying the evolution of future success. Original Message Subject: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISINGFrom: Eric Woodward e...@nambu.comDate: Mon, May 24, 2010 1:34 pmTo: Twitter Development Talktwitter-development-talk@googlegroups.comAt this point I am not why anyone that cares enough to be in thisgroup is surprised. It is clear that Twitter is going to take*everything* for themselves. I don't understand why anyone wouldcontinue to develop on Twitter's platform as anything more than ahobby. First it was us (Twitter clients) and now it is the adplatforms' turn. Next it will be somebody else.Lots of us enjoy developing for its own sake, and that is what Twitteris now: a feature you add to something else, or a hobby activity. Timewe all just faced up to it.--ejwEric WoodwardEmail: e...@nambu.com
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
So, Tweetie for Mac, which shows an ad at the top of my friends timeline ... will no longer be allowed to do so? http://i.imgur.com/pazT3.png Is this another misinterpretation of the policy, too? On 5/25/10 1:28 AM, Ryan Sarver wrote: It *does prohibit* an application from calling out to a service to find an ad to serve to Liz that will get inserted into the timeline she is viewing. The language is somewhat nuanced but it sounds like we might need to make the policy more explicit as a number of people are misinterpreting it. -- Dossy Shiobara | do...@panoptic.com | http://dossy.org/ Panoptic Computer Network | http://panoptic.com/ He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70)
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
On May 25, 1:28 am, Ryan Sarver rsar...@twitter.com wrote: The language is somewhat nuanced but it sounds like we might need to make the policy more explicit as a number of people are misinterpreting it. It sounds like most people are misinterpreting it which might have to do with how the information was conveyed and not the intelligence of the readers. Maybe Twitter should have engineers/developers write all blog posts concerning parameters of what is allowed or banned with the Twitter API. Liz nwjersey...@yahoo.com
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:16 AM, mycro...@lifewithindustry.com wrote: I stopped development on my Twitter app a year after realizing that the twitter API was not yet stable enough to allow an individual developer to create a stable product. I continue to follow the exchange between developers and Twitter as much for entertainment as to keep track. Twitter understands the eco-system that is evolving no better than the rest of us but it still wants to control and direct the evolution. Each bit of control it exerts trims off branches of evolution that do not support the main stem. By cutting off branches twitter is possibly denying the evolution of future success. My experience and thoughts exactly, also. Nick
RE: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Hey! How are you doing? We read your post on “Twitter Development Talk” ‘Google Group’. You are right that, developing a twitter app individually is a very hard work. Or, in crux, it’s really impossible. But, please don’t give up. If you still like to create the twitter app or want to help in the development work, then you have the option to join us! We, Steel Sendras Group, is an organization providing various non-profit for-profit services worldwide. And, recently, we want to develop a really cool, efficient, smart, reliable twitter app along with other softwares. So, you can come on board. We are a community of people working together to make the web a better place. If you think it’s a spam, then please feel free to contact us. Cheers.. Steel Sendras Group Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/SteelSendras From: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com [mailto:twitter-development-t...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mycro...@lifewithindustry.com Sent: Tuesday, 25 May, 2010 4:46 pm To: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING I stopped development on my Twitter app a year after realizing that the twitter API was not yet stable enough to allow an individual developer to create a stable product. I continue to follow the exchange between developers and Twitter as much for entertainment as to keep track. Twitter understands the eco-system that is evolving no better than the rest of us but it still wants to control and direct the evolution. Each bit of control it exerts trims off branches of evolution that do not support the main stem. By cutting off branches twitter is possibly denying the evolution of future success. Original Message Subject: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING From: Eric Woodward e...@nambu.com Date: Mon, May 24, 2010 1:34 pm To: Twitter Development Talk twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com At this point I am not why anyone that cares enough to be in this group is surprised. It is clear that Twitter is going to take *everything* for themselves. I don't understand why anyone would continue to develop on Twitter's platform as anything more than a hobby. First it was us (Twitter clients) and now it is the ad platforms' turn. Next it will be somebody else. Lots of us enjoy developing for its own sake, and that is what Twitter is now: a feature you add to something else, or a hobby activity. Time we all just faced up to it. --ejw Eric Woodward Email: e...@nambu.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2895 - Release Date: 05/25/10 11:56:00
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
I'd love to see some clarification from Dick on this statement and/or a possible change in the TOS. The press has wildly heralded it as the end of all advertising on Twitter not coming from Promoted Tweets. Even if this is not true the public perception certain impacts all of our businessesand if we are to develop with any level of trust what's stated clearly and publicly is still going to be more important than internal confirmations. Look forward to hearing a clearer stance on this. On May 24, 10:28 pm, Ryan Sarver rsar...@twitter.com wrote: I want to make sure this part is clear -- this policy change isn't meant to say that we are going to start policing if the content of something a user tweets is an ad or not. The policy change affects 3rd party services that were putting ads in the middle of a timeline. So if Liz is paid by Reebok to tweet about how much she loves their new shoes, we are not going to be policing that any more than we were on Friday. This policy also *does not prohibit* services like Ad.ly that help facilitate those relationships or even help her post the ads to her timeline on her behalf. It *does prohibit* an application from calling out to a service to find an ad to serve to Liz that will get inserted into the timeline she is viewing. The language is somewhat nuanced but it sounds like we might need to make the policy more explicit as a number of people are misinterpreting it. Let me know if you have more questions. Ryan On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Liz, You are 100% correct in summarizing the problem. Not only were those businesses built with the full knowledge of Twitter, Twitter even had specific rules governing sponsored tweets (had to be clearly marked as sponsored, etc.). I'm really baffled by this decision of Twitter, because I don't understand how they expect to have integrity and trust with developers while doing this type of stuff. Right now we are all being pointed to Annotations as the holy grail of new development. But how do we know that they won't yet again change a rule in the future that will kill businesses that were built on top of Annotations? On May 24, 3:56 pm, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, I think the problem is that business have been created, received funding and developed over the past year, with the full knowledge of Twitter, and this just undercuts destroys them. I think people can understand the rationale (and the desire for Twitter to eliminate competition) but this is a policy decision that should have been made over a year ago. Twitter should have included this in an earlier terms of service instead of giving an implicit okay to services like Sponsored Tweets which has turned into a successful company. It also seems disingenuous that the blog post says that a guiding principle of Twitter is that We don't seek to control what users tweet. And users own their own tweets. and allow adult-oriented content and photos but for some reason, users can't Tweet ads. That sounds like control of content to me. Liz
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Ryan, Thanks for writing the clarification. It sounds as if the intent of the ban is to prevent anyone from emulating and distributing a stream of Twitter data to Twitter mobile/web/desktop clients and inserting ads into it. Tweets posted in individual accounts by account owners or by proxies/3rd parties on behalf of the account owners are still allowed. The blog post did not suggest that this was the case, nor did most of the press about the subject (as mentioned earlier in this thread). Your post clears this up a lot. Apologies to Dick On May 24, 10:28 pm, Ryan Sarver rsar...@twitter.com wrote: I want to make sure this part is clear -- this policy change isn't meant to say that we are going to start policing if the content of something a user tweets is an ad or not. The policy change affects 3rd party services that were putting ads in the middle of a timeline. So if Liz is paid by Reebok to tweet about how much she loves their new shoes, we are not going to be policing that any more than we were on Friday. This policy also *does not prohibit* services like Ad.ly that help facilitate those relationships or even help her post the ads to her timeline on her behalf. It *does prohibit* an application from calling out to a service to find an ad to serve to Liz that will get inserted into the timeline she is viewing. The language is somewhat nuanced but it sounds like we might need to make the policy more explicit as a number of people are misinterpreting it. Let me know if you have more questions. Ryan On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Liz, You are 100% correct in summarizing the problem. Not only were those businesses built with the full knowledge of Twitter, Twitter even had specific rules governing sponsored tweets (had to be clearly marked as sponsored, etc.). I'm really baffled by this decision of Twitter, because I don't understand how they expect to have integrity and trust with developers while doing this type of stuff. Right now we are all being pointed to Annotations as the holy grail of new development. But how do we know that they won't yet again change a rule in the future that will kill businesses that were built on top of Annotations? On May 24, 3:56 pm, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, I think the problem is that business have been created, received funding and developed over the past year, with the full knowledge of Twitter, and this just undercuts destroys them. I think people can understand the rationale (and the desire for Twitter to eliminate competition) but this is a policy decision that should have been made over a year ago. Twitter should have included this in an earlier terms of service instead of giving an implicit okay to services like Sponsored Tweets which has turned into a successful company. It also seems disingenuous that the blog post says that a guiding principle of Twitter is that We don't seek to control what users tweet. And users own their own tweets. and allow adult-oriented content and photos but for some reason, users can't Tweet ads. That sounds like control of content to me. Liz
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Just so that I'm clear, the fact that Twitter chose to do this isn't a surprise. It's the fact that I've been participating in events, developing, networking, and building a team all year AFTER getting affirmations from individuals at Twitter that I had nothing to worry about in building a Twitter advertising platform. I've seen a lot of bad behavior from ad platforms that incent users to tweet for short-term financial gain, so I understand the need to tidy up from time to time. But, this was more like sand-blasting the living room in order to do some dusting. Maybe you guys have a Google Adsense-type shared revenue model (or something similar) in the works that enables those who know how to properly add value and relevance to generate an income stream in a way that is beneficial to Twitter users and Twitter. That would make sense. Another great strategy would have been issuing a warning to bad players while also incenting everyone to build mechanisms to support Promoted Tweets. There are a number of paths that could have been chosen that would have been a win-win. ...we will not allow any third party to inject paid tweets into a timeline on any service that leverages the Twitter API The way this reads, you can't even have a WordPress blog that puts ads near a Twitter stream. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting this. RIP Ad.ly, Sponsored Tweets, Magpie, Pay4Tweet, StockTwits, MuckRack, (No more ads Listorious), TwittAd (and the non-profits you've supported), 140Proof, etc., etc. -Mo On May 24, 9:23 am, Mo maur...@moluv.com wrote: You guys couldn't have hinted about this to me at the developer meetup or at Chirp before I built up a team? Thanks. It's fitting that the author of the post is named Dick. http://blog.twitter.com/2010/05/twitter-platform.html
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
The way this reads, you can't even have a WordPress blog that puts ads near a Twitter stream. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting this. You're misinterpreting it. There's not a problem if you're displaying a Twitter feed on a page and there are ads -near- it. What is now forbidden is the injection of ads into the stream itself.
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
I want to voice support of this decision. I build third party apps that are 100% about consuming, purposing, and displaying tweet streams. If different clients inevitably begin selling tweet injections, I really don't want to deal with those on my end. The tweet stream should remain a pure data entity. Dick has already said apps can opt out of displaying tweets, but if other apps are injecting, I lose control of that, and it will wreck the integrity of my app. Trust is ensuring that tweets coming to me through streams, are, to the best of twitter's ability, not spam. On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Duane Roelands duane.roela...@gmail.comwrote: The way this reads, you can't even have a WordPress blog that puts ads near a Twitter stream. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting this. You're misinterpreting it. There's not a problem if you're displaying a Twitter feed on a page and there are ads -near- it. What is now forbidden is the injection of ads into the stream itself.
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Peter, The strength of Twitter is that the user has control, not a developer. If they want to post an offer on their page, or anything else for that matter, for pay or just because they want to share one, they should be allowed to. The Twitter infrastructure is a great filter for weeding out posts, users, and apps that have poor intentions. You, as a developer, can always exclude tweets based on where the tweet came from. I also support Twitter's intent, but this was not the best way to get it done. On May 24, 10:24 am, Peter Denton petermden...@gmail.com wrote: I want to voice support of this decision. I build third party apps that are 100% about consuming, purposing, and displaying tweet streams. If different clients inevitably begin selling tweet injections, I really don't want to deal with those on my end. The tweet stream should remain a pure data entity. Dick has already said apps can opt out of displaying tweets, but if other apps are injecting, I lose control of that, and it will wreck the integrity of my app. Trust is ensuring that tweets coming to me through streams, are, to the best of twitter's ability, not spam. On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Duane Roelands duane.roela...@gmail.comwrote: The way this reads, you can't even have a WordPress blog that puts ads near a Twitter stream. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting this. You're misinterpreting it. There's not a problem if you're displaying a Twitter feed on a page and there are ads -near- it. What is now forbidden is the injection of ads into the stream itself.
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Does this mean that any tweet that promotes any event or item that is not free (Such as, Tickets to the 2011 National Finals Rodeo go on sale tomorrow.) violates the TOS?
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Peter, I think the problem is that business have been created, received funding and developed over the past year, with the full knowledge of Twitter, and this just undercuts destroys them. I think people can understand the rationale (and the desire for Twitter to eliminate competition) but this is a policy decision that should have been made over a year ago. Twitter should have included this in an earlier terms of service instead of giving an implicit okay to services like Sponsored Tweets which has turned into a successful company. It also seems disingenuous that the blog post says that a guiding principle of Twitter is that We don't seek to control what users tweet. And users own their own tweets. and allow adult-oriented content and photos but for some reason, users can't Tweet ads. That sounds like control of content to me. Liz
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: And users own their own tweets. and allow adult-oriented content and photos but for some reason, users can't Tweet ads. That sounds like control of content to me. Amen
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Liz, You are 100% correct in summarizing the problem. Not only were those businesses built with the full knowledge of Twitter, Twitter even had specific rules governing sponsored tweets (had to be clearly marked as sponsored, etc.). I'm really baffled by this decision of Twitter, because I don't understand how they expect to have integrity and trust with developers while doing this type of stuff. Right now we are all being pointed to Annotations as the holy grail of new development. But how do we know that they won't yet again change a rule in the future that will kill businesses that were built on top of Annotations? On May 24, 3:56 pm, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, I think the problem is that business have been created, received funding and developed over the past year, with the full knowledge of Twitter, and this just undercuts destroys them. I think people can understand the rationale (and the desire for Twitter to eliminate competition) but this is a policy decision that should have been made over a year ago. Twitter should have included this in an earlier terms of service instead of giving an implicit okay to services like Sponsored Tweets which has turned into a successful company. It also seems disingenuous that the blog post says that a guiding principle of Twitter is that We don't seek to control what users tweet. And users own their own tweets. and allow adult-oriented content and photos but for some reason, users can't Tweet ads. That sounds like control of content to me. Liz
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
As I interpret it they don't want clients to inject ads in the stream at the display end. Not at the posting end. On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Lil Peck lilp...@gmail.com wrote: Does this mean that any tweet that promotes any event or item that is not free (Such as, Tickets to the 2011 National Finals Rodeo go on sale tomorrow.) violates the TOS? -- Harshad RJ http://hrj.wikidot.com
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
At this point I am not why anyone that cares enough to be in this group is surprised. It is clear that Twitter is going to take *everything* for themselves. I don't understand why anyone would continue to develop on Twitter's platform as anything more than a hobby. First it was us (Twitter clients) and now it is the ad platforms' turn. Next it will be somebody else. Lots of us enjoy developing for its own sake, and that is what Twitter is now: a feature you add to something else, or a hobby activity. Time we all just faced up to it. --ejw Eric Woodward Email: e...@nambu.com On May 24, 9:23 am, Mo maur...@moluv.com wrote: You guys couldn't have hinted about this to me at the developer meetup or at Chirp before I built up a team? Thanks.
[twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
I think developers, other than those who have built a business serving in-stream ads, are freaking out for no reason. Let's start with the in- stream ad companies. If you built these applications and did not see this coming you deserve this. Apps that used the Twitter API to serve in-stream ads are directly competing with Twitter core business, or at least the one they plan to use to monetize their product. Twitter has every reason in the world to get these applications of the site and out of the timelines. Based on Dick Costello's post, it seems as if applications that do not directly interfere with Twitter's core product will continue to thrive. We believe there are opportunities to sell ads, build vertical applications, provide breakthrough analytics, and more. Companies are selling real-time display ads or other kinds of mobile ads around the timelines on many Twitter clients, and we derive no explicit value from those ads. That’s fine. We imagine there will be all sorts of other third-party monetization engines that crop up in the vicinity of the timeline. Companies like StockTwits and Flixup are safe. Companies like ad.ly and 140Proof are not. The low hanging fruit was in-stream advertising. This made perfect sense because 1). it was easy to execute and scale and 2). Twitter was not doing it. Founders of these apps were very short-sighted if they thought they would be able to continue to play in-stream at, what Costello is saying, was at the users and the platforms expense. Developers need to innovate and figure out ways to leverage the power of Twitter's data and monetize outside of Twitter.com and outside of the timeline. On May 24, 4:34 pm, Eric Woodward e...@nambu.com wrote: At this point I am not why anyone that cares enough to be in this group is surprised. It is clear that Twitter is going to take *everything* for themselves. I don't understand why anyone would continue to develop on Twitter's platform as anything more than a hobby. First it was us (Twitter clients) and now it is the ad platforms' turn. Next it will be somebody else. Lots of us enjoy developing for its own sake, and that is what Twitter is now: a feature you add to something else, or a hobby activity. Time we all just faced up to it. --ejw Eric Woodward Email: e...@nambu.com On May 24, 9:23 am, Mo maur...@moluv.com wrote: You guys couldn't have hinted about this to me at the developer meetup or at Chirp before I built up a team? Thanks.
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
I want to make sure this part is clear -- this policy change isn't meant to say that we are going to start policing if the content of something a user tweets is an ad or not. The policy change affects 3rd party services that were putting ads in the middle of a timeline. So if Liz is paid by Reebok to tweet about how much she loves their new shoes, we are not going to be policing that any more than we were on Friday. This policy also *does not prohibit* services like Ad.ly that help facilitate those relationships or even help her post the ads to her timeline on her behalf. It *does prohibit* an application from calling out to a service to find an ad to serve to Liz that will get inserted into the timeline she is viewing. The language is somewhat nuanced but it sounds like we might need to make the policy more explicit as a number of people are misinterpreting it. Let me know if you have more questions. Ryan On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Liz, You are 100% correct in summarizing the problem. Not only were those businesses built with the full knowledge of Twitter, Twitter even had specific rules governing sponsored tweets (had to be clearly marked as sponsored, etc.). I'm really baffled by this decision of Twitter, because I don't understand how they expect to have integrity and trust with developers while doing this type of stuff. Right now we are all being pointed to Annotations as the holy grail of new development. But how do we know that they won't yet again change a rule in the future that will kill businesses that were built on top of Annotations? On May 24, 3:56 pm, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, I think the problem is that business have been created, received funding and developed over the past year, with the full knowledge of Twitter, and this just undercuts destroys them. I think people can understand the rationale (and the desire for Twitter to eliminate competition) but this is a policy decision that should have been made over a year ago. Twitter should have included this in an earlier terms of service instead of giving an implicit okay to services like Sponsored Tweets which has turned into a successful company. It also seems disingenuous that the blog post says that a guiding principle of Twitter is that We don't seek to control what users tweet. And users own their own tweets. and allow adult-oriented content and photos but for some reason, users can't Tweet ads. That sounds like control of content to me. Liz
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
Quoting Ryan Sarver rsar...@twitter.com: I want to make sure this part is clear -- this policy change isn't meant to say that we are going to start policing if the content of something a user tweets is an ad or not. The policy change affects 3rd party services that were putting ads in the middle of a timeline. So if Liz is paid by Reebok to tweet about how much she loves their new shoes, we are not going to be policing that any more than we were on Friday. This policy also *does not prohibit* services like Ad.ly that help facilitate those relationships or even help her post the ads to her timeline on her behalf. It *does prohibit* an application from calling out to a service to find an ad to serve to Liz that will get inserted into the timeline she is viewing. The language is somewhat nuanced but it sounds like we might need to make the policy more explicit as a number of people are misinterpreting it. Let me know if you have more questions. Ryan Ryan, you could do the whole world a *huge* favor and post this (and the other similar post) as a comment to Mashable's extracts of today's discussion here. http://mashable.com/2010/05/24/twitter-third-party-ad-networks/ On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Liz, You are 100% correct in summarizing the problem. Not only were those businesses built with the full knowledge of Twitter, Twitter even had specific rules governing sponsored tweets (had to be clearly marked as sponsored, etc.). I'm really baffled by this decision of Twitter, because I don't understand how they expect to have integrity and trust with developers while doing this type of stuff. Right now we are all being pointed to Annotations as the holy grail of new development. But how do we know that they won't yet again change a rule in the future that will kill businesses that were built on top of Annotations? On May 24, 3:56 pm, Liz nwjersey...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, I think the problem is that business have been created, received funding and developed over the past year, with the full knowledge of Twitter, and this just undercuts destroys them. I think people can understand the rationale (and the desire for Twitter to eliminate competition) but this is a policy decision that should have been made over a year ago. Twitter should have included this in an earlier terms of service instead of giving an implicit okay to services like Sponsored Tweets which has turned into a successful company. It also seems disingenuous that the blog post says that a guiding principle of Twitter is that We don't seek to control what users tweet. And users own their own tweets. and allow adult-oriented content and photos but for some reason, users can't Tweet ads. That sounds like control of content to me. Liz
