Twitter To Developers: Please Love Us Again (mashable.com) 143
Twitter wants to fix its relationship with developers, it said Thursday. The company, which sold its developer platform to Google earlier this year, said moving forward it intends to be more transparent with developers and provide them with more insight. From a report: While some continue to call the end of Twitter (and others gave up on the product years ago), the company is prioritizing more tools for developers in order to grow the site. "These efforts represent a massive new engineering and product investment in the future of the Twitter API platform, and in our developer ecosystem," Andy Piper, Twitter's staff developer advocate, wrote in a blog post announcement. One of the steps involves creating an easier to use service overall. Twitter offers several developer products, including free APIs, services from data analysis group Gnip, and the enterprise-level Twitter API product. Twitter plans to simplify its offerings by releasing one way to get access to the Firehouse (access to all tweets in real-time), one way to access Twitter search, and one access for account activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon seems to manage it, just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Lesson Zero (Score:2)
If you're consuming someone else's API to get at someone else's data, you're not a developer, you're a consumer.
Developers won't abandon a platform/service if there's money to be made. They'll jump through tons of hoops. Look at iOS and the AppStore. Look at Facebook. Twitter may have bungled their API repeatedly, but if the service and data were useful enough to develop for, developers would still do so.
Twitter killed itself with its politics, "Trust & Safety Council", ads, and incessant changes to
Re: (Score:1)
Lets say, Donald Trump cures cancer, here is now the News Media will report it ..>
TRUMP FIRES DOCTORS!!!
MILLIONS OF DOCTORS OUT OF WORK!!!
RUSSIA HACKED CANCER!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the US president neither gets to "fire" doctors nor does he get to "redeploy" them; much as you may be lusting to have every country be a shitty as Cuba or Venezuela, the US isn't there yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of those programs employ doctors.
I think those programs are one of the major reasons doctors are leaving the profession. They are also one of the major reasons American health care is so outrageously expensive and comparatively ineffective or even harmful.
E.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
So, cutting funding for those programs would
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They pay doctors, they don't employ them.
Even if that were true, it wouldn't mean that Trump can "fire" those people, so your statement is wrong. If you meant that they might not get paid, then you should have said that.
Of course, it's not true anyway. Without those shitty, inefficient
Re: (Score:2)
And how are they going to pay those doctors if they can't bill patients? And all those doctors running their own clinics - if they can't bill medicare/medicaid, they're not going to be able to have as many doctors in their group, It's not just hospitals. So doctors out of work, by Trump cutting funding - the exact mechanism I said.
You're a moron if you can't follow the chain of cause and effect. Or are you going to argue that Trump's cuts to the EPA aren't going to result in people being fired/laid off/out
Re: (Score:2)
We're not talking about cause and effect here, we're talking about "firing". "Firing" is something employers do to employees. Trump can't "fire" doctors because he doesn't employ them. End of story. Your hare-brained theories about what the consequences of ending Medicare would be are irrelevant to the question of whether doctors are employees of Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we ARE talking cause and effect. Cuts to budgets result in firings. The cause is the person doing the budget cuts - not the person tasked with doing the actual termination.
Demand for medical services isn't "inelastic." Go watch "Sicko". Or look at the people who can't afford to see a doctor because the co-pay is too high. People do NOT "always find ways to pay physicians." Otherwise, they wouldn't need medicare and medicade - many, before they got covered by one of these two plans, hadn't seen a docto
Re: (Score:2)
"Resulting in firings" isn't the same as "firing". If I stop going to my local neighborhood cafe and it closes, I didn't "fire" anybody.
Medicare and Medicaid aren't free; people pay for them. They cost several times as much as they should cost and are not sustainable. They also only spend around 8% on physician salaries. So, eliminatin
Re: (Score:2)
Never said Medicare and Medicade were free - just that some people would not see a doctor if it weren't for them.
Now as to your personal attacks on me - I'm retired, bozo. Here people have the right to retire at 60, and given the state of my health, it was inevitable. Or are you going to characterize everyone who's retired as "out-of-work"? Same as you tried to characterize us as "practically wards of the state"?
I'll "chime in on US politics" as much as I damn well please. You see, freedom of speech isn't
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't have to "review" anything; we both have been on the site for a decade.
You like Canada, great! I'm happy there is a place for people like you. I immigrated to the US by choice, and because it is different from Canada or Europe. I have never said anything about what Canada or Europe sho
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you admitted you googled me. Your words: "When I search for you on google". Stop lying, fool. And FYI, I've been here a lot longer than you. My first uid was 5 digits.
Type 1 diabetes is also a costly lifelong medical condition if treated, and fatal if not. Are you going to call for not treating those who can't pay the full cost for a genetic condition they were born with and did not choose? 30 years ago it cost me half my earnings. Now, we have universal mandatory pharmacare insurance here, so it's
Re: (Score:2)
I did. Gender reassignment surgery increases rates of suicide and psychiatric disorders [nih.gov]. That's, in fact, consistent with your history of depression, sexual assault, and deep-seated anger.
You were indeed victimized, by parents, teachers, and a society that evidently didn't teach you what you needed to know. Life stories like yours are exactly why I bel
Re: (Score:2)
You're so full of shit again. That study has been completely disproven. Come on - they cite sources from 1975. Subsequently, it's been established that the public's attitude played a huge role back then. Acceptance wasn't like it is today. The vast majority of studies show that post-transition, people's suicide rates are just slightly higher than the average population.
Anything is better than the 40% who want to kill themselves without proper treatment. In other words, people receiving proper treatment a
Re: (Score:2)
The study is from 2011 and is the most highly cited study on the subject [google.com]. If you have a more recent study, feel free to share it.
No, I think health care should be privatized and insurance based: the government should (usually) neither give nor take when it comes to healthcare. Government and charity should be reserved for peop
Re: (Score:2)
The study you and many fundy christians quoted is old (the previous century), and only has a total of 17 subjects. Here's one from 2012 with 889 subjects [emeraldinsight.com]. It shows that suicidal ideation is mostly caused by rejection and lack of support before transition.
The study found that trans people are most at risk prior to social and/or medical transition and that, in many cases, trans people who require access to hormones and surgery can be left unsupported for dangerously long periods of time. The paper highlights the devastating impact that delaying or denying gender reassignment treatment can have and urges commissioners and practitioners to prioritise timely intervention and support.
There are plenty more that all say the same thing - hormones and surgery lower the individual's risk, as does social acceptance. It's assholes like you who are the cause of the high risk pre-transition.
Also, you don't think that voters and taxpayers shoul
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it has 324 sex reassigned subjects and 3240 controls. The study is from 2011, so it's not old. It does look at long-term effects of gender reassignment and objective criteria, which is a good thing. And suicides occur at significant rates until the end of the study, so you cannot explain the results by social changes.
Re: (Score:2)
To see what really went wrong in your case, one would have to look at your medical history in detail, but it is highly implausible that all these problems were unrelated and accidental; that would be extraord
Re: (Score:2)
No - the original study that it quotes only has 17 subjects, and dates ton 1975. A second study it quotes is also from the '80s, and another portion is from the 90s. Social conditions have changed, and subsequent studies have found that the biggest determinators were lack of social acceptance and support, and delayed care. Learn to do proper research.
And obviously newer research will be less cited because it hasn't been around as long. Here's a simple test - go in person and talk to a specialist in the fi
Re: (Score:2)
Are you for real? All women have a huge risk of sexual assault - 50%. And the vast majority are repeat victims. So my experience is typical. It comes with the territory, and the problem isn't transition, the problem is men who think with their dicks. Nice victim-blaming you've got going there, jerk.
In a large enough population, you're going to get some people who, just at random, have a much higher number of "bad things" happening to them than others, same as if you pick random 4-digit numbers, you'll even
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please, spare me the obvious histrionics. Medically, sexual assault is simply a risk factor after MTF gender transition. That is objectively relevant when judging the risk/benefit and cost/benefit ratios of your procedure. The choice of undergoing a major surgery followed by life-long hormonal treatment for what is ess
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even look at the paper? It follows a cohort of more than 3500 people over decades. Stop making things up!
Geez, what possible motivation could a surgeon have to convince you of the benefits of the kind of surgery they perform? Are you really that naive?
Re: (Score:2)
I made choices? To try to stop a murder when I was 16 rather then be killed as well? How is that a bad thing, even if it did give me PTSD? Hint - it's not - because I survived.
And no, you're the one who claims it would be $10,000/year/person. [usatoday.com]
The difference, however, between the No. 1 spender, the United States, and the No. 10 spender, Canada, is quite large. Canada spent 10.2% of its GDP on health care in 2013, which amounted to $4,351 per person, while the United States spent 16.4% of its GDP that year, amounting to $8,713 per person.
So if you just did the same things we do, which result in longer lifespans, it would be less than half what you're using as a comparison. However, because being an American is pretty much commensurate with being overweight or obese, the costs will obviously be higher.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a deconstruction of your stupid claims. [wordpress.com]
To drop from over 40% prior to surgery to 4% after is an incredible success story. Stop selectively quoting without looking at the context.
Too bad that in the US, society is letting transsexuals down by continuing to pass laws against them, as well as making it hard to obtain surgery that, as the figures show, saves lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is 35 million people occupying the second largest country in the world, with enormous natural resources, strict immigration restrictions, few geopolitical concerns, and with little diversity. Your idea that other countries can simply choose to be like Canada is as profoundly ignorant and arrogant as royalty saying "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche".
Secondly, Americans s
Re: (Score:2)
You're comparing "suicidality" from a US survey with actual suicides from a Swedish study. Talk about dishonest use of statistics.
In any case, it doesn't matter anyway. "I'm suicidal unless you amputate a body part" is neither medically nor ethically a sound justification for government-financed major surgery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
strict immigration restrictions, few geopolitical concerns, and with little diversity.
You just can't stop lying, can you?
Statistics Canada projects that, by 2031 [wikipedia.org], almost one-half of the population over the age of 15 will be foreign-born or have at least one foreign-born parent.[24] The number of visible minorities will double and make up the majority of the population of cities in Canada.
Canada admitted 35,700 Syrian refugees. That's almost 3x the US number. [macleans.ca] That's a heck of a lot better than the US's 12,486 [pewresearch.org]
Also, don't forget the province of Quebec - the second-largest province in the country - mostly french. Canada has 2 official languages.
Canada is more diverse than the US [pewresearch.org]
A comparison of the Harvard and Goren maps show that the most diverse countries in the world are found in Africa. Both maps also suggest that the United States falls near the middle, while Canada and Mexico are more diverse than the US.
It's why I chose the US; it's pretty much the only major country that still operates that way.
Look at your last election. The rest of the world is laughing at you. Sad little man.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't stop confabulating, can you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
As I was saying before: I want to thank you for your brutal honesty about your life and the kind of support and guidance Canadian society has given you. You certainly confirmed again my impressions of Canada. I hope and trust my fellow Americans will draw the right conclusions from your example and from your conduct.
Re:twitter is an official propaganda machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, just maybe, so much of the media coverage of Trump is negative because the things his administration is doing (or not doing) are perceived negatively by a large part of the population. Maybe it's because numerous things Trump promised to accomplish "on day one," or in the first month of his term, or in the first 100 days of his term haven't been done. Maybe it's because Americans are figuring out they prefer having imperfect health care as opposed to none at all, they kinda like having clean water that isn't full of coal fly ash, and they need those Amtrak trains to get to work. Maybe it's because every single day, more shady connections between Russia and the Trump camp are revealed, and the administration bungles more cover-up attempts. Maybe it's because the president looks outright incompetent having his appointees continually resigning, getting fired, recusing themselves, and finding themselves under investigation by the FBI. Maybe it's because the public doesn't quite approve of Trump's nepotistic despotism, or the very troubling appearance that he's christened his son-in-law to do an end run around various posts that are supposed to require Congressional approval.
Nahhh, can't be any of that; it's the (((librul media globalist elites))) who are the problem, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's because every single day, more shady connections between Russia and the Trump camp are revealed, and the administration bungles more cover-up attempts.
You clearly haven't gotten the left-wing talking points memo. Now that Trump has bombed Syria, you are supposed to be upset that Trump is provoking Russia too much, not that Trump is being too friendly with Russia.
Re: (Score:3)
So ... both sides hate Twitter? A few postings up, we heard that it's just Trump's propaganda machine, here we get to learn that it's just Hillary's feel-good show.
Wow, even Fox News only managed to piss off one side of the political fence.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot users have hated twitter since 2008, if willyhill's sockpuppet exposé [slashdot.org] is to be believed.
Re: (Score:2)
...and just after I wasted my mod points
Re: (Score:2)
Odd. I would consider myself "left". And it's likely I make more money than you. Yes, even after those insane European taxes.
There's an easy way to do this. (Score:5, Informative)
Stop fucking around with the API and stop fucking around with access to it. You need to build trust and you can't do that when you change rules willy-nilly all the time.
The reason why developers fled your platform is because you never let it stabilize long enough for people to do things with it. Then, if memory serves, you closed it. And then you sold it.
So the question becomes one of why would anyone want to invest the time to figure the API and platform out if you're just going to pull the football away without warning?
Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter, the problem is a fundamentally different one: Why bother with you?
Twitter was a very good platform to get points across quickly. You would say what you want and people could reply to it, could write short counterpoints to it, it was quite the place. A veritable "marketplace of ideas". And actually, the short format worked in the favor of this. Instead of writing an endless stream of words where the average reader's eyes glaze over somewhere in the middle (like, say, this wall of text here), you had to be terse and get your point across. Which allowed readers to quickly go down the list of replies and counterpoints, allowing a reader to get a really good grasp of a topic he was interested in and hearing many opinions, conflicting opinions that sometimes led to quite heated and interesting discussions.
That time is gone. Now that you can't even be sure anymore that you get to hear everyone. With shadowbans left and right, and some people outright getting banned to "make a point against different views, I mean, hate speech". Hate speech? Disagreeing with someone has become hate speech now? Don't get me wrong, if someone said that group X should be strung up, I could at least see the point, but we're talking about people whose "crime" was to disagree with someone and make them drop out of their echo chamber.
TL;DR: Twitter became irrelevant when not hurting someone's feelings became more important than hearing all sides of a story.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't forget that Twitter banned many developers from using the API, because they didn't like the purposes the developer had in mind. Law enforcement or government? Commercial and not an advertiser? Ban!
Once you've kicked out the best paying and most reliable developers, why would anyone else bother with you?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep. Had a project that was hoping to use Twitter to essentially do a quick and dirty damage assessment after natural disasters. (The idea was that people already tweet pictures of things after a disaster and they could be used to quickly determine areas that needed to be checked out more thoroughly.) It was government related, so Twitter banned us.
Anything that isn't about invading people's privacy to try and sell crap isn't allowed on the Twitter API.
Re: (Score:3)
The monetary value in Twitter was never in discussions, debates, or the latest celebrity selfie.
It was in the fact that often news broke there first. Someone feeling an earthquake, or seeing a US assault on OBL's compound is announced there before it hits the news, and as such automated data mining and monitoring can reap great rewards, from trading, to being the first news person with a story, to targeted advertising based on an event, to better directed emergency response information, or nowadays, to inte
Re: (Score:1)
Why bother developing anything profitable and meaningful if Twitter can take one look at it, decide they'd like to steal the concept, change their terms and lock you out of their API then build their own version?
Leverage (Score:2)
I agree that the shadow bans and such are really hurting Twitter. They certainly have curtained my use of it to an extent.
But the reason for developers to bother, is that if they write successful apps that increase Twitter use, that gives them leverage to ask Twitter to stop things like shadow bans. If nothing else things like shadowbans would complicate an API or alternately make the API appear not to work (when it will not fetch messages that are plainly there or sharing a link with others fails becaus
Re: (Score:2)
But why risk it? I might develop something that Twitter doesn't like for some odd reason because it ... purple monkey dishwasher. And poof, gone it is.
And please don't say that never happened. It did. More often than you could imagine.
Why should I invest time and energy into a market that is so highly risky that the chances are pretty good that the moment it becomes successful someone gets "offended" by its very existence and it is going to be shut down?
What you're dealing here is essentially the social med
Re: (Score:2)
And please don't say that never happened. It did. More often than you could imagine.
Of course it happened. I know all too well, as I said in another post I had Twitter API ideas I have shelved in response to some of those issues.
Why should I invest time and energy into a market that is so highly risky that the chances are pretty good that the moment it becomes successful someone gets "offended" by its very existence and it is going to be shut down?
Because Twitter is still a really promising platform that co
Re: (Score:2)
It's not exactly that way for all of app development. If you develop an app for Android, you can be fairly sure that you will be able to run it in the foreseeable future. Hell, even with iOS there is a set of rules that you have to abide with, but if you do, your app will continue to exist.
What we're talking about here is an app going *poof* for no other reason than Twitter saying "yeah, we didn't like it", without even providing an explanation what you did wrong.
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Shadowbans left and right" (Score:5, Interesting)
I honestly don't give a fuck what spectrum gets banned. For the record, I am a liberal. Leaning towards socialist even. Hey, I'm European, for the average American I'm probably a commie anyway.
But I DO want to hear what everyone has to say! Yes, that includes that I want you to be allowed that this Opportunist bastard should be dropped out of a plane without a parachute. I want you to be allowed to say that! I want you to be allowed to speak your mind, even if I think it's complete and utter bullshit!
I do reserve the right to reply to it, though. And I do expect that I get to be heard too. I am a firm believer in audiatur et altera pars, everyone has to be heard if you at least want to have a CHANCE to get to the true core of a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine too. Hey, you do have that right to not listen to anyone, that's absolutely ok. But as far as I'm concerned I, and only I, should have the right to decide what I want to listen to and what not.
In turn, you, and only you, should have the right to decide what you want to listen to.
Re: (Score:1)
This commie Opportunist bastard should be dropped out of a plane without a parachute.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. I disagree, care to present your argument for it? Mine against it would, at least for now, be that I enjoy living.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're in the minority now, sadly. I agree with what you're saying and I respect that sort of difference of opinion.
But you don't have to look far to find people who are trying to solve the problem of "abuse" by making sure some messages are never heard. I mean, just look at this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/02/unwanted-advances-on-campus-us-university-professor-laura-kipnis-interview [theguardian.com]
Unless perhaps I'm not keeping up and the Guardian is now considered Russian propaganda, it's quite dangero
Re: (Score:2)
Helicopter, not plane. Not sure why, the things cost a fortune to run and are quite space limited, but it's always helicopters.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm am probably the exact ideological opposite of you fiscally and socially, but in this we are in 100% complete agreement. Not bad for a commie ;)
Additionally, the best antisceptic for rotten ideas is to expose it to sunlight. The more people out there that can see how amazingly flippant an idiot is, the more ridicule they will get.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is capricious with its bans. It bans people for saying offensive things, but doesn't ban them for saying threatening or dangerous things.
I abhor hate speech, and I actually support my country's ban on it. I believe speech can be weaponized; advocating for the extermination of a person or people on the basis of race or orientation or whatever shouldn't be protected speech. (Don't argue with me about this; I don't care what you think in this regard. I'm just giving this preamble as context, not to inv
Re: (Score:2)
Only bad ideas require censorship for survival. If you need proof for that, take a look at any dictatorship in history.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody? You act as if that was only one person. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them stink.
The fun part is that what you USED TO be able to do is to simply reply to it and call people out on their bullshit. Try that now.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter was a very good platform to get points across quickly.
Then along came somebody who only uses it to spew lies and misinformation.
Then along came everybody using it to spew lies and misinformation.
Will Twitter drop the "consumer secret"? (Score:5, Informative)
One big problem with the Twitter API that I'm aware of is the requirement of an OAuth "consumer secret", which I've mentioned before [slashdot.org].
Twitter's implementation of OAuth 1 requires each application to sign all requests with a private key that an application's developer is obligated to keep secret even from the application's users. This is fine for a web application that runs on a server. But a native application, particularly one distributed as free software, can't avoid exposing its private key to the user. Twitter can and does revoke keys that leak [nelhage.com]. Though most other services have switched to the more cookie-like OAuth 2 spec, which has an option to allow desktop applications to operate without a private key, Twitter has persisted in requiring this idiocy, which both the OAuth 1 and OAuth 2 RFCs discourage.
Does this new announcement include a move away from a mandatory "consumer secret" for applications that run on a desktop or mobile computer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
route your shit through your own web service
That was already mentioned in the linked comment:
If you were developing a free application that uses the Twitter API, how would you go about recovering the cost of operating "your own web service"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
which means loss of control to the user. A local client can keep the user secret local. My service would need to know your secret.
Re: (Score:2)
An application using the Twitter API uses the application secret to obtain a secret that represents the (user, application) pair. The trouble is with distributing an application containing said application secret to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, but i can read your public timeline with the application secret, but only post to it with the obtained secret. When i hide the app secret in the binary you get, you can request a user secret, which allows the app to use twitter, without sharing the user secret with the developer. And if you get the app secret (which is bad), you still cannot get the secrets of other users without phishing (now YOU request them to login to a site, which uses the app secret, so it gets new user secrets).
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, one user of a desktop application can leak the app secret and report to Twitter its having been leaked, causing Twitter to revoke the key for all the application's users.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The concept is broken. But it's also hard to solve, if you do not want a password login (which cannot be revoked as nicely as oauth tokens).
You would need something to do like getting an token from a user encrypted with the twitter pubkey, then signing it with your app key on your server and getting a user secret back encrypted for the user signed by twitter or something similiar ... and i guess there is no such standard available, yet.
Re: (Score:2)
You would need something to do like getting an token from a user encrypted with the twitter pubkey, then signing it with your app key on your server
Which requires the developer to operate a server. How is the operation of said server paid for, particularly for an application that's distributed as free software through Savannah, GitLab, or GitHub?
Re: (Score:2)
I answered the question, how somebody could operate a relay server without knowing the client secrets. You're asking another question now.
Re: (Score:2)
You're asking another question now.
I'm fully aware that this is a follow-up question. What are practical answers thereto?
Re: (Score:2)
a flow without app token. Or username password, but we discussed a scheme, which doesn't expose too much of my account and/or credentials to you.
Re: (Score:2)
a flow without app token.
And my complaint in comment #54185757 was that Twitter hadn't officially made such a flow available to developers. What am I missing?
Or username password, but we discussed a scheme, which doesn't expose too much of my account and/or credentials to you.
I must be missing something. In which comment did "we discuss[]" such "a scheme"? The scheme you mentioned in comment #54192497, which involves "signing it with your app key on your server", fails the moment the developer ceases to operate the server. So how, if at all, is it possible for an installable app distributed as free software to provide all three of password privacy,
Re: (Score:2)
The whole OAuth scheme is the good idea to give applications a revokable token only. Would you give a thirdparty site your password? And for a thirdparty app you should think about your trust as well.
The additional app token prevents other sites from claiming to be your app. Your site has an unique token and an unique user readable app id. Which you can see in some twitter apps below the posts. When i use yourcooltwitterapp, i do not want you to be able to trade the user-secret.
But the whole flow has the pr
Re: (Score:2)
Hi Ron.
We don't care. Damage done.
-- the world.
Confused here, real API issue not talked about (Score:3)
To start with, Twitter did not sell off "their API". They sold Fabric which was a tool to help others with app development, not developer access to Twitter.
Secondly, as far as I knew the number one hugest blocker to Twitter API use was Twitter not letting new developers have more than a tiny amount of allowed API calls, or rules around how much a client could write anyway (as the article alludes to). In fact there was a huge Kickstarter campaign [kickstarter.com] that succeeded in part because this is one of the few developers on earth that has a key that allows them much larger numbers of users to post tweets.
I personally have some fun ideas for Twitter use in apps I'd love to try. With access to Twitter via API being limited though, I will never put forth the effort into making them happen. So has Twitter (or all Twitter) finally let developers write REAL twitter clients again that any number of people can use?
If not good luck and thanks for all the fish.
Re: (Score:2)
That was what did it for me. I wrote an application to let people see who followed you so you could decide whether or not you wanted to follow you back. It was a decent application and, if I put some work into it, might have been something many people used. Shortly after launching it, Twitter changed their API rules, vastly limiting the amount of times a developer could hit their API and how much data they could pull. My application, given it's tiny audience, wouldn't have hit that amount, but had it grown
Have each user register with Twitter (Score:2)
Develop your client and distribute it without keys. Then each user of the application can register on Twitter as a developer, register his own copy of the client as an application, and paste the keys that Twitter issues to that user into the client.
nuanced qualities ... (Score:1)
Micro.blog (Score:2)
I'm really looking forward to the launch of Micro.blog [kickstarter.com]. I've supported the project, which will release a mobile client and a backend that simply build upon open stuff like RSS (which everyone and their mother supports).
Twitter doesn't have any attraction to me. It's just one big bucket of, well, of everyone. So as a consequence, it feels like I don't know anybody there.
Re: (Score:2)
Use GNU social. Its ready and has a lot of users and it even looks like twitter looked in better times.
They still hate third-party clients (Score:2)
Things started going downhill when they started putting limitations on third-party clients, like only allowing a limited number of user API keys and not providing new features to third parties, like polls for example.
Then after they did that, they slowly started making their official client worse and worse until it became unpleasant to use. If they ever kill off third parties like Tweetbot, that'll be the end of Twitter for me.
I wish they'd go back to encouraging and supporting third-party clients. If they
FUCK IT (Score:1)
LOL, that's rich... (Score:4, Informative)
Remember when Twitter shut down access to 3rd party access?
http://www.digitaltrends.com/m... [digitaltrends.com]
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2... [idownloadblog.com]
http://news.softpedia.com/news... [softpedia.com]
http://www.eweek.com/developme... [eweek.com]
Stop fucking around (Score:2)
Specific to developers: Do you really think mandatory mobile numbers on developer accounts will attract more developers? We do not want to give you number to share with your advertisment partners (as said in the ToS).
Raise the api limits, give us functions to access ALL twitter functions instead of a limited subset, rate limit but do not limit the age of date which can be retrieved. 200 DMs and that's all? What do you think how people should implement for example an archive function, if you only get the mos
Re: (Score:3)
Something i have to add:
Get your banning right!
Stop shadowbanning and throttling. If you do not have enough reasons to ban (or ban for a certain time) people, do not ban at all. Shadow Bans are a stupid concept, which only confuses people, what happend or if anything happend at all. Your service seems to be dysfunctional and the reaction is to see it as a broken technology. Be clear with your intent, ban people and tell them.
I have one account, which posted updates about a security related site. It is shado
Twitter allows third party apps again? (Score:2)
Who knew!
Firehouse (Score:2)
Twitter plans to simplify its offerings by releasing one way to get access to the Firehouse
Are you certain it is not "firehose" instead?
My phone number doesn't even work: no TTS (Score:2)
Even adding a phone number doesn't work. I tried adding my landline to the add_phone form [twitter.com] today. But instead of Twitter reading out the verification code through text-to-speech the way my bank does, it produced a message "There was an error sending a text to that phone number. Please try again."
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say it continues on that my tweets cannot be seen. This is an account used to promote news of a particular interest. What good is the account to me now?
Next time, don't let someone insert themselves between you and your users. Get their email addresses.
Re: (Score:2)
"also you are banned for using the right pronouns and for blaspheming our Prophet (pbuh)."
Shit, I created a new business account this morning and got banned for uploading a profile pic (no funny business, just my business logo). It was tagged as "suspicious activity". I tried to reactive it but my business phone number (which I've had for 13 years now) is "unsupported" for a phone call or SMS to confirm.
I had the account [twitter.com] open for, I think two minutes before getting banned. So, really, pronoun use and bla