I second that. 2009/6/10 Justyn Howard <justyn.how...@gmail.com>
> What are the chances that this new TOS will negate any of the hard work > we’ve done up until this point? Can you give us an idea of what will be > protected? It’s a little alarming to hear that Twitter might decide to > reserve functionality that the developer network has built-on and enhanced > in favor of internalizing as business assets. As there has been no TOS in > place other than the general Twitter TOS, many of us have spent countless > hours and $$ trying to build businesses around Twitter. > > Not trying to be an alarmist, just curious what this will ultimately mean > for us? > > Justyn > > > On 6/9/09 8:51 PM, "Doug Williams" <d...@twitter.com> wrote: > > The API TOS is currently in development. It is taking longer than hoped as > we are still exploring what we want to give to developers and what we want > to protect as business assets. For now, make sure that you understand the > general TOS we have in place. > > We do work with developers if they are willing to answer our attempts to > reach out before shutting them off due to TOS violations. We also try to > understand what developers are doing and how they may be heading against the > grain before issuing whitelisting. Most developers are willing to work with > us which is great and works out for everyone. > > Thanks, > Doug > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Jesse Stay <jesses...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Doug, where is the developer API TOS? I think that's part of the problem - > none of us are being required to enter into an agreement before > developing, therefore we have no idea what we can and can't do with it. I > also don't think most of us even know where any such TOS is, if there is > one. I agree that the OAuth application process should make this a bit > easier to manage, > and help developers know more about what they are getting into before > starting their applications. > > Personally, I want to make sure I'm following the rules of the > API. I'd also prefer to know what I'm agreeing to before starting a business > on top of it. > I feel for the developers of the 2 mentioned apps because, *if* they are > violating any TOS, they probably had no idea they were doing so before > spending so much time developing it. (even if I disagree with the premise of > those apps) > > @Jesse > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Doug Williams <d...@twitter.com> wrote: > > Brant, > Thank you for your concern. This is something that bothers us as well. > > Moving applications exclusively to OAuth-based authentication will > certainly help in restricting applications that abuse the service. If you > find a service that you think is violating our TOS, please email > a...@twitter.com or send a message to @twitterapi and we can take a look. > As you mentioned, Del is great but she is but one person. We do have an > abuse team forming to help quickly identify which services are violating our > TOS. All in all we have a lot of work to do so please do help where you can. > > Cheers, > Doug > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Brant <btedes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This message will hopefully get back to the people who run Twitter API > development and spam prevention. > > I noticed there are quite a few twitter applications that are > developed to abuse the service and violate their TOS. They do not > hide what their purpose is, yet these applications remain active. I > contacted twitter.com/delbius <http://twitter.com/delbius> who heads > Twitter Spam prevention and > she said that they do revoke API access to abusive applications. But > I don't think they are taking an aggressive stance against them. > > Abusive Applications: > http://www.huitter.com/mutuality/ > http://www.twollo.com/ > > The combination of these two applications is for outright abuse of the > service. They have been around for several months and are known > applications to abuse the service with. To make matters worse, > Twitter suspends accounts of the people who use these applications > rather than targeting the root of the problem, the applications > themselves. (Sound counterproductive? RIAA uses a similar policy by > going after end users.) > > I propose that applications need to be more closely scrutinized and > can even be flagged as abusive by users. Instead of creating > algorithms that detect abnormal user behavior, why not detect abnormal > application behavior. > > Taking a stronger stance against gray area applications could reduce > server load on Twitter (giving real applications faster response time) > and reduce manpower to deal with spam prevention. > > I strongly encourage anyone who develops Twitter applications to send > this link around. > > Thanks for reading, > Brant > twitter.com/BrantTedeschi <http://twitter.com/BrantTedeschi> > > > > > > -- cashflowclublondon.co.uk ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' (il),-'' (li),' ((!.-' .
