I thought Twitter didn't like bots? If so, why did they apparently have one send out suspension warnings? That's at least my conclusion given their non-response to questions, at least in that case.
(As well, it seems as though the OAuth push is, at least in part, about app policing.) One would have thought that the Twitter police would be better aimed at enacting policies to deal with abuse by end-users, rather than such a heavy hand against apps. What's next? TweetDeck is going to be banned because they allow single-button duplicate tweets across multiple accounts? Some of us have built businesses and livelihoods around Twitter. It's scary to have those things threatened by the possibility of capricious enforcement handled by "no questions please" email demands. On Feb 15, 11:11 am, Abraham Williams <4bra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sounds like Twitter dropped the ball with notifications. It appears that > Twitter normally does send notifications before suspension as Refollow [1] > got 2 warning. Although Rob had the issue of no response to clarifications. > > Abraham > > [1]http://refollow.tumblr.com/post/380619972/weve-been-suspended-by-twitter > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:34, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Wow. What's really of concern is the capricious approach Twitter > > seems to have with app developers. Some apps are given a month to > > make a change, some are cut off immediately, some are sent legal > > letters, some are contacted beforehand, some aren't. > > > Frankly, there should be no tracking code. If there is an issue, > > apart from extreme situations, Twitter should contact the app and, as > > they apparently did with socialtoo, give some reasonable period of > > time to remedy. > > > On Feb 15, 10:02 am, Peter Denton <petermden...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Twitter should at least send a notification suspension, as well as a > > > tracking code possibly, for both parties benefits, twitter and the app. > > > > *Reason*: My app was suspended, for something perfectly harmless, and was > > > re-granted permission the next day, but it took a few communications > > with > > > twitter to resolve. > > > > This is only going to continue to become more and more frequent. I would > > > hate to envision a team of a few people having to follow up on app > > > suspensions w/o reference. > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > The argument of, "Clearly defining rules helps the spammers because > > > > then they know exactly how to stay just within the boundaries," holds > > > > _absolutely no_ water. > > > > > Imagine you own an ice rink. You draw a circle with a radius of 2 > > > > meters on the ice, and make the rule that it's okay to skate inside > > > > the circle, and not okay to skate outside the circle. > > > > > If someone skates right at the edge, at 1.999 meters, all the time, it > > > > _does not matter_ because you have decided that it is okay and > > > > acceptable to skate there. > > > > > The same goes with Twitter rules. Make the rules very granular and > > > > very clear. Then, if someone skates just within the fringes, _it does > > > > not matter_ because they are still within what you deem acceptable. > > > > > And, then _everyone_ knows where is the line between good and bad > > > > application behavior, because then it is a fence and not a broad gray > > > > smudge. > > > > > Most app developers are _not_ "the enemy" and most app developers will > > > > be more than happy to not develop or to disable features that violate > > > > the rules. > > > > > If only we can understand the rules. > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:04 am, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > +1 to what Dewald says. > > > > > > We are purposely NOT developing certain features for fear that > > Twitter > > > > > may suddenly change their rules once again. Is this the sort of > > > > > business environment that Twitter wishes to foster? > > > > > > We had assumed that, at the very least, applications would be > > > > > contacted before any sort of action on Twitter's behalf. But > > > > > apparently not. And apparently this push for OAuth integration is > > > > > simply a means to more easily cut-off access to certain apps. > > > > > > Ugly. > > > > > > On Feb 14, 4:30 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I attempted to make clear that my issue was not with the guilt or > > > > > > innocence of GoTwitr. > > > > > > > It's with the message being sent to all of us when no communication > > > > > > accompanies a suspension. > > > > > > > I'm going to beat the dead horse yet again. With vague and nebulous > > > > > > rules, nobody knows for certain what is allowed and what is not. > > > > > > > Twitter invite people to build businesses using their system and > > API. > > > > > > By providing the platform, extending the invitation, and making the > > > > > > rules, they are also assuming a responsibility. > > > > > > > It is a grave concern that one's business can be terminated by > > Twitter > > > > > > with no warning and no explanation, based on some rule that nobody > > > > > > knows for certain exactly what it entails. It would have been a > > > > > > slightly different situation had their rules been as clearly > > defined > > > > > > as Facebook's rules, but they're not, with intention. > > > > > > > Take follower churn for example. Do I churn followers if I unfollow > > > > > > ten people in a day, and follow five others? Or do I only churn if > > I > > > > > > unfollow a hundred? Or is it two hundred? Or, wait, is the number > > > > > > immaterial while my intention puts me in violation or not? If so, > > how > > > > > > is my intention discerned? > > > > > > > Take duplicate content for example. If I tweet "Happy New Year!" > > every > > > > > > January 1st, is that duplicate content? What about "Good morning > > > > > > tweeps!" every morning? Will my personal and business accounts be > > > > > > suspended if I tweet, "Can't wait for the iPad!" from the same IP > > > > > > address at roughly the same time? What if I did what Guy Kawasaki > > > > > > recommended athttp://bit.ly/jkSA1andtweetedthesame text four > > > > > > times a day, will my account be suspended? > > > > > > > These are question my users ask me, and I don't have an answer for > > > > > > them. > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 6:51 pm, Tim Haines <tmhai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dewald, > > > > > > > > Try looking in the google cache. I'm surprised it was allowed to > > > > live for > > > > > > > as long as it did. > > > >http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:o2N2KuZsuYgJ:www.gotwitr.com/+go. > > .. > > > > > > > > It was basically a spam enabler. > > > > > > > > T. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Dewald Pretorius < > > dpr...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I cannot comment on what Jim's site did or didn't do, since he > > has > > > > > > > > pulled all descriptive information from the site. > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, it is highly disturbing that applications are > > being > > > > > > > > suspended without any notice. This particular site seems to > > have > > > > had a > > > > > > > > contact form, plus it was OAuth, so the owner could have been > > > > > > > > contacted via the email address on file for the Twitter user > > that > > > > owns > > > > > > > > the application. > > > > > > > > > Yes, some apps do stuff that warrant suspension. But, to just > > > > suspend > > > > > > > > an app with no communication is bad. > > > > > > > > > If Twitter don't want to give some sites the opportunity to > > correct > > > > > > > > transgressive behavior (I know they do communicate in some > > cases), > > > > at > > > > > > > > the very least send an email to the owner with, "Your service > > has > > > > been > > > > > > > > suspended because...", and give a clear path and instructions > > on > > > > how > > > > > > > > the situation can be remedied as soon as possible. > > > > > > > > > I'm going to say it again, Twitter: Your rules are vague and > > > > nebulous. > > > > > > > > Not everyone understands and interprets the rules the way you > > do > > > > > > > > internally. > > > > > > > > > You must realize that actions like these sometimes shout so > > loud > > > > that > > > > > > > > we cannot hear when you say, "We care about our developers." > > > > > > > > > Rightly or wrongly, here's a developer who has lost face with > > his > > > > user > > > > > > > > base, and has been in the dark for 4 days now. The message it > > sends > > > > to > > > > > > > > us, the other developers, is a very bad message. If you > > properly > > > > > > > > communicated with Jim, he probably wouldn't even have posted > > about > > > > it > > > > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 3:56 pm, Jim Fulford <j...@fulford.me> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, I need some help. 4 days ago I started getting emails > > > > from my > > > > > > > > > users that they could not login to our site using the Oauth > > > > service. > > > > > > > > > I checked my site and it said my application had been > > suspended. > > > > I > > > > > > > > > did not get any email from Twitter, they just deactivated my > > > > > > > > > application so nothing works. I have sent in two support > > > > tickets, but > > > > > > > > > gotten no response. 2 days ago, I took my site > > > > downwww.gotwitr.com > > > > > > > > > so that I would stop getting support email from my users. > > > > > > > > > > I have had this site up for 5 months, and I have over 5000 > > users > > > > have > > > > > > > > > used the service. I am so glad that I have never charged for > > the > > > > > > > > > service, this would be a nightmare. > > > > > > > > > > If they would let me know what our site, or one of our users > > did > > > > to > > > > > > > > > get banned, we would be glad to fix it. We have tried to > > make > > > > our > > > > > > > > > site as Twitter API friendly as possible. > > > > > > > > > > We are 100% Oauth, we have never saved or requested any users > > > > > > > > > passwords. > > > > > > > > > We only let our users hit the Twitter API 1000 times in a 24 > > hour > > > > > > > > > period > > > > > > > > > We have all of our tools that follow or unfollow use > > individual > > > > user > > > > > > > > > verification, (no mass follow or unfollow) > > > > > > > > > > An email with the issue would have been great. > > > > > > > > > > Not getting a response in the last 4 days that my site has > > been > > > > down > > > > > > > > > is really not acceptable! > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > -- > Abraham Williams | Community Advocate |http://abrah.am > Project | Out Loud |http://outloud.labs.poseurtech.com > This email is: [ ] shareable [x] ask first [ ] private.
