Raffi, People keep quiet and don't say what they really think on these forums because they are scared of falling out of favor with you guys. That is what I meant.
On Feb 15, 5:54 pm, Raffi Krikorian <ra...@twitter.com> wrote: > "the wrath of the platform team" <- that's a highly unfair characterization. > just sayin'. > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Look, it is self-evident by now that this heavy-handed Gestapo-like > > action against applications is causing great anxiety in the developer > > community. We now have two very recent incidents, one of which was > > handled by Brian, who is part of the Platform team. > > > For every person who has commented on this thread, there are numerous > > others who remain silent out of fear of incurring the wrath of the > > Platform team. I know, some of them have emailed me privately about > > this. > > > Ryan, we need to hear from you, please. > > > This is not a good situation, neither for you nor for us, and we > > cannot solve this. Only you can. > > > On Feb 15, 4:16 pm, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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/jkSA1andtweetedthesametextfour > > > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »
