

The Suggested Users List as a tool to control news? - swombat
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/09/22/theSulAsAToolToControlNews.html

======
sabon
What's so unusual about it? Is there any imperative to list Techcrunch and
keep it listed no matter what? Even after they publish confidential
information that wasn't supposed to be published at all?

If one of your friends (like in real life, you know) stole your diary and
started telling all your other friends everything from that diary, would you
still be obliged to be friends with him? Pretty obvious, isn't it?

And keep in mind that Twitter's aim is not to be the most objective and
complete source of news, you know? They just have a list of sources they think
are worth checking.

~~~
doug_m
Sorry but the fact that twitter did this to Techcrunch must be masking
people's views here, otherwise I can't understand the comparison with
someone's diary.

At the end of the day I value journalism of this kind which is in part
investigative and doesn't, to my uneducated eyes, appear to have any personal
cost. I'm not sure how interesting it was in this case, but in general "wasn't
supposed to be published" is about a fraction of the rationale that needs to
be there for a media organisation not to publish.

At the end of the day, TC broke a story here and leaked something Twitter
didn't want out in the open. They took a hit on traffic and, by extension, to
their exposure which as a media company presumably is a measure that affects
revenue. Therefore Twitter deprived TC of revenue as punishment for publishing
information they didn't want to see in the public eye.

That's a bad thing, for me, for a media company to have done and it is unusual
+ interesting.

~~~
sabon
Well, so while Twitter "deprives TC of revenue as punishment" (can you even
say this with a straight face? Really?) is a crime, but TC hurting Twitter's
image is perfectly OK? I'm lost here...

Also keep in mind that providing TC with this revenue from Twitter is strictly
their good will and should not be taken for granted. Do you really not see
this?

~~~
doug_m
Of course I see what you're saying, its not a question of whether it is or
isn't good will - it's whether you're comfortable with a company exercising
this kind of power against a media company on the basis said company wrote
something which was unfavourable.

As far as depriving revenue goes, I'm obviously talking up the effect because
I find the stance Twitter took interesting. I'm not suggesting this is tens of
thousands of dollars and I don't think its less interesting just because it
isn't.

TC certainly shouldn't be in the industry of doing this or that because they
do or don't hurt Twitter's image.

------
jgrahamc
If Twitter did drop TechCrunch from the suggested users list at that point
because of TechCrunch publishing internal Twitter documents obtained by a
hacker then... I applaud ev and the Twitter team.

~~~
helium
Why? Because they're biased with the information they present to their users?
When I see a suggested user list, I want the a list of users whom I would like
to follow. Not a list of users who are popular and have not pissed of twitter.

Ok sure, I know this is techcrunch, but I despise it when information comes
with hidden agendas. It just smacks of censorship.

~~~
jgrahamc
_It just smacks of censorship_

It is censorship which a private company like Twitter is perfectly entitled to
perform. I have no problem with them doing this. Every company decides on its
view of the truth to present to the world.

~~~
doug_m
I'm not sure that "perfectly entitled to perform" statement holds up.
"Legally" entitled to perform, yes... "Morally" entitled to perform, hmmm.

It does seem Twitter was willing to deprive a benefit (read exposure/revenue)
granted to TC on the basis the documents were leaked. In the future if TC had
interesting/harmful information on Twitter to reveal they would decide
commercially whether to publish by taking into account any negative impact for
them in exposure on twitter.

That's unhealthy isn't it? Twitter would be less likely to receive
negative/unhelpful press than other similar companies on the basis they can
punish those who do it.

I know I'm deliberately talking up what happened here but it is an interesting
question, to me at least

~~~
unalone
Dude, we're talking morality over a list of recommended people on Twitter.
That's Twitter's way of saying "We like these people!" Saying that their
removing TechCrunch is immoral is like saying that it's immoral to stop dating
a girl who cheated on me.

Twitter would be justified in what they did, even if their "recommended" list
was important enough to be worth an argument, and it's not.

~~~
doug_m
I don't see the comparison with respect to dating, this is sanctions against a
media company on the basis they gave unfavorable coverage.

As far as the scale goes, this is what it is - its cost TC 600,000 followers
on Twitter - if there is a numeric value to that of even a dollar I still
personally find the situation interesting because I find the principal of this
kind of sanction to be a moral point of debate.

Moral is a strong word though I admit!! I just can't think of another way to
express it.

~~~
pyre
> _I don't see the comparison with respect to dating, this is sanctions
> against a media company on the basis they gave unfavorable coverage._

If removal from the list is 'sanctions' then what would you call not being
included in the list at all? Should Twitter be forced to add _all_ news sites
to that list (and never remove them)? If so, what constitutes a 'news site?'
Should _all_ blogs be included in that list too?

Just because being on the Suggested Users List garners you a steady stream of
new followers doesn't necessarily mean that once you are on that list Twitter
is _obligated_ to keep you there because you are now 'entitled' to keep that
steady stream of new followers from now until the end of time. I will admit
that there is a fine line when dealing with these issues, but removal from the
Suggested Users List isn't that harsh... it would be different if Twitter
banned their account or 'accidentally' screwed up their account beyond repair
(forcing them to create a new account with a new name, possibly permanently
losing a number of followers in the confusion). Or excluded TechCrunch's twits
from search results or something similar.

{edit} Bringing this possible conflict of interests to light is a _good thing_
but jumping up and down like the sky is falling and Twitter is the 'Evil
Empire(tm)' is over the top and completely unnecessary {/edit}

------
cpr
Poor Dave--he's obsessed with not being on that Suggested Users list.

~~~
EvilTrout
Also, his own app ships with a hand picked suggested users list:

<http://eyeonwiner.org/archives/2009/dave-admits-hypocrisy>

~~~
jonknee
... And even better he accepted money for listing on his suggested users list.
Pay to play!

<http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/2003/07/07.html#a4052>

------
ivankirigin
SUL is editorial. Techcrunch made a dicked move against twitter. There is no
story here. If they wrote an article saying "twitter is bad" it would be far
worse.

------
hanskuder
All this article points out is that being on the SUL is a significant source
of followers. There's no surprise that being removed from the SUL would cause
growth to stagnate.

~~~
pmichaud
Plus, it's their list, their service, they can decide who is on it for
whatever reason they choose to.

------
glower
The problem is with the publications who accept positions on the SUL and then
won't write a negative piece about Twitter for fear of being removed from the
list. Those publications have an integrity issue. Most of you guys are looking
in the wrong place. It's hard to argue that Twitter did anything terribly
wrong. The ones you should be looking at are the journalists who are still on
the list.

------
adrianwaj
Finally a way for Twitter to make money! Grabbing or securing spots in the
SUL.

[http://pulse2.com/2009/03/12/jason-calacanis-offering-
twitte...](http://pulse2.com/2009/03/12/jason-calacanis-offering-twitter-
with-250k-to-be-suggested-user-to-follow/)

------
zck
It was a while -- it looks like almost two weeks -- between TechCrunch
publishing the article and twitter removing them from the suggested followers
list.

I wonder if there are any more examples, or if anyone on the suggested
followers list has been critical of twitter.

