Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flips
Even if we pretend that's a legitimate definition, your assertion still doesn't make sense.
Don't feed the trolls.
Twitter responds to IFFFT
31–40 of 45 posts
Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT
#32First, he said he didn’t want to be “flip.” Wow, a dick and a racist. Could Twitters' leadership get any worse?
I'm legitimately curious, what way do you think that "flip" is racist? Are you joking, or just not aware of the etymology?
Derogatory term for someone from the Philippines (Filipino).
Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT
#33Thank you tech crunch, I'm now more confused than before. So, what does the homework quote have to do with anything. Either IFTTT is allowed to use the Twitter API or they are not. I don't see how a laziness accusation is relevant.
Why are you blaming TC? That's Twitter's CEO trying to shift the blame off of Twitter.
Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT
#34So if someone kicks me in the nuts, it didn't actually happen because I am "one data point"?
The Twitter CEO's statements are reminiscent of the BlackBerry co-CEOs laughing at the iPhone's lack of tactile keyboard.
Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT
#35Thank you tech crunch, I'm now more confused than before. So, what does the homework quote have to do with anything. Either IFTTT is allowed to use the Twitter API or they are not. I don't see how a laziness accusation is relevant.
Why are you blaming TC? That's Twitter's CEO trying to shift the blame off of Twitter.
Because if TC isn't clarifying, then the reporter is acting only as a stenographer.
Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder what would have happened if twitter had said all free accounts must use the twitter app or website, and pro-accounts (let's say $5/month) can use the full API with 3rd party apps?
It could mean less money overall, if advertisers want to target the kind of user who would sign up for an ad-free pro account.
Are you saying that unpaid Twitter users are worth more than $5-10/mo to advertisers? That's a pretty high spend.
Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT
#37It feels like a fairly passive aggressive message. Kicking off with a "blame the victim" jibe in the homework line (I'm not commenting on whether they are actually the victims here, merely the phrasing), it strikes an initial tone of "this is their fault, not ours". Moving on to an entirely disingenuous non-apology ("i'm sorry you were offended" vs. "i'm sorry I offended you"), it doesn't get much better. Then on to…
The "homework" line is referring to people blaming unrelated events on Twitter's API changes.
Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flips
Even if we pretend that's a legitimate definition, your assertion still doesn't make sense.
No pretending necessary; it has been a widespread term for years. Here's a Wikipedia article on it with sources:
Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could mean less money overall, if advertisers want to target the kind of user who would sign up for an ad-free pro account.
I never said ad-free, but I guess certain clients could block or hide those.
$5 a month would be totally worth it for a lot of people. Even with promoted tweets, etc., I think people would go for it.
Charge, but let people do whatever they want with their own data ... give them access to their full history of their own tweets and maybe some other advanced features. Meanwhile let everyone use twitter.com for free if they want.
Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT
#40Why do people consider it a right to have constant access to a Twitter API? Twitter is a private, for-profit company, not a charity, no?
Nobody I've read is claiming they have a right to access Twitter API. Twitter is legally entitled to do whatever the hell they want. Most of what I've read falls in one of two categories:
1) Criticism of Twitter for implementing a policy that has generated so much ill-will for the company, and essentially prevented 3rd party devs from solidifying Twitter as a kind of a microblogging platform of the Net. Clearly Twitter believes this will serve them better. Most people disagree.
2) Warning for trusting closed platforms.