4 ms·

Twitter: Please carry on suspending accounts like this.

epi0Bauqu 18y ago
Did you actually read the post? I said clearly it violated their TOS. So yeah, they did the right thing. That's why I wrote an apology and asked to be reinstated. The point was there is something valuable in there, i.e. worth charging for, that they should accommodate. And where is the spam line anyway. Is sending one unsolicited tweet, spam? What about 5? What about one a day? Certainly all follows are not two way, so in some sense, a large portion of tweet replies are unsolicited. Is any tweet reply where the person is not following you, spam? My suggestion was that they keep so-called paid tweets completely separate. So if you never want to see them, you don't have to. But if you want to see them, they are one-click away.
- aaronblohowiak 18y ago
  I think the repetition is a bigger deal than the unsolicited nature.. unrelated: congrats on the birth of your son!
  - epi0Bauqu 18y ago
    Yeah, I think you are right, which is the part of the TOS a quoted in the post, i.e. "updates consist of duplicate or repeating links and/or text." And thanks!
- apgwoz 18y ago
  don't @replies only show up in your /home if you're following the person that made the reply? I could be wrong, but if not, I see nothing wrong with it (other than the disagreement between you and Twitter's TOS).
- thenduks 18y ago
  Of course I read the post... The spam line goes like this: If you're tweeting to someone you don't know (unsolicited) about a product/service/etc (advertising), then it's spam. Here's an example: I don't know you, I get a tweet from you that says "you should try out <such and such>" <- spam I'm not really trying to say anything about your idea of paid tweets. I would pay to not ever seen them, for instance. I don't see how twitter would benefit (other than financially, and I'd say that is far from certain) from some sort of scheme where you pay to be able to spam people.

Did you actually read the post? I said clearly it violated their TOS. So yeah, they did the right thing. That's why I wrote an apology and asked to be reinstated. The point was there is something valuable in there, i.e. worth charging for, that they should accommodate. And where is the spam line anyway. Is sending one unsolicited tweet, spam? What about 5? What about one a day? Certainly all follows are not two way, so in some sense, a large portion of tweet replies are unsolicited. Is any tweet reply where the person is not following you, spam? My suggestion was that they keep so-called paid tweets completely separate. So if you never want to see them, you don't have to. But if you want to see them, they are one-click away.

aaronblohowiak 18y ago
I think the repetition is a bigger deal than the unsolicited nature.. unrelated: congrats on the birth of your son!
- epi0Bauqu 18y ago
  Yeah, I think you are right, which is the part of the TOS a quoted in the post, i.e. "updates consist of duplicate or repeating links and/or text." And thanks!
apgwoz 18y ago
don't @replies only show up in your /home if you're following the person that made the reply? I could be wrong, but if not, I see nothing wrong with it (other than the disagreement between you and Twitter's TOS).
thenduks 18y ago
Of course I read the post... The spam line goes like this: If you're tweeting to someone you don't know (unsolicited) about a product/service/etc (advertising), then it's spam. Here's an example: I don't know you, I get a tweet from you that says "you should try out <such and such>" <- spam I'm not really trying to say anything about your idea of paid tweets. I would pay to not ever seen them, for instance. I don't see how twitter would benefit (other than financially, and I'd say that is far from certain) from some sort of scheme where you pay to be able to spam people.