Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Updates Developer Rules in the Wake of Bot Crackdown (mashable.com)
Twitter is getting serious about its bot problem. From a report: Hours after a massive bot purge that prompted the #TwitterLockOut hashtag to trend, the company is announcing new rules for developers meant to prevent bots from using third-party apps to spread spam. According to the new rules, developers that use Twitter's API will no longer be able to let users: Simultaneously post identical or substantially similar content to multiple accounts. Simultaneously perform actions such as Likes, Retweets, or follows from multiple accounts Use of any form of automation (including scheduling) to post identical or substantially similar content, or to perform actions such as Likes or Retweets, across many accounts that have authorized your app (whether or not you created or directly control those accounts) is not permitted.
Cue the alt-right cries of censorship...
How are they going to determine similar content?
Any tweet with the phrase "no collusion" is going to be tossed out.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Verified cell-phone number?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
>> developers meant to prevent bots from using third-party apps to spread spam
I thought that was the whole point of Twitter: bots posting to other bot's feeds. During my brief time in marketing, that was my general experience anyway: we'd package up some piece of clickbait, link it to an article we planted on Slashdot or similar forum, and then drop it into a bot hopper somewhere to bounce around an extended bot ecosystem, in the hopes that the occasional tweet/link would eventually get posted to a notable news source and increase our SEO midichlorians. As for anyone actually READING Twitter? That's something that only happened when we needed to retune existing bots or build new ones. Long story short, as a human, "I ain't got time for no Twitter!"
Just turn off API access to Twitter.
It seems like they could have just called and let the handful of people with grandfathered unlimited Twitter API access know this.
Everyone else gets limited Oath keys so they can't support many Twitter users at once anyway, which would seem to limit bot use...
I really doubt bots are coming in through the API, they are coming in via the website by bots pretending to be a browser.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Seriously.
mnem
Pants are highly overrated.
I'm genuinely curious as to whether this decision came from public pressure, social pressure, legal pressure, or the that very minor sense of integrity that says that even if we allow individuals to have more than one voice, they shouldn't be allowed to use all of them at literally the exact same time.
Unless there's a piece of software that can automate the screaming of one particular statement in timed intervals to circumvent these new rules, of course.
Just look at the accounts using this hashtag. They have have something in common.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
privately owned public spaces
could you elaborate on that fam?
Cue the alt-right cries of censorship...
Cue the droning on of $FAVORED_PARTY saying $UNFAVORED_PARTY crying about $PERCEIVED_SLIGHT.
All I know is Gab.ai got a massive bundle of new users in the last day or so.
Does that sound like something bots would do?
I think Twitter has reached the "we don't care about users" stage.
Next up will be the "We see some problems on the horizon" phase, followed by the "we've changed our direction" phase, then the "please come back - we're sorry" phase, then a couple of "we've reorganized and eliminated 10% of our employees" phases.
After that, maybe a year or two from now, we will look back on twitter with the same fondness as AOL and Yahoo.
(For those who didn't already know, Gab.ai is a replacement that promises free speech. Offensive posts are handled at the user's end - you are allowed to mute other people or words that you don't want to see in your feed. This ensures that you won't be offended, while allowing everyone else the right to speak their minds.)
Maybe this case of protesting in a shopping mall? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12...
My understanding is that it was not just a bot purge, it was also an ideological purge to a non-trivial degree. Anecdotally, a number of conservative users were locked out, some with no recourse and others allowed back in if they provided additional identifying details like a phone number.
It defies logic to believe the company's reaction to events in the political sphere could in any way be apolitical.
No they want to get rid of the echo chamber that makes extreme views look like it's coming from mainstream when really it's very few people and a whole bunch of bots.
And what is an "extreme" view? Oh right, the ones that disagree with AmiMojo.
And what is an echo chamber? Oh right, only those who perpetuate things AmiMojo disagrees with. When people perpetuate things AmiMojo agrees with, well that can't be an echo chamber. Not one to worry about at least.
To borrow from Bill Maher:
Someone saying "men are better than women" - Boo! deplorable sexist scum!
Someone saying "women are better than men" - cheers from the crowd! Go girl power!
More like:
Someone says Bill Maher should get the death penalty for smoking marijuana. There's loud cheers! - The majority of the crowd looks around with a confused look and see's one person in the corner with a bunch of amplifiers.
If a website operator deliberately makes a public website inaccessible to users with disabilities, it risks a lawsuit from National Federation of the Blind or foreign counterparts.