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.
