

Without Warning, Twitter Kills StatTweets - RobbieStats
http://statsheet.com/blog/without-warning-twitter-kills-stattweets-businesses-beware

======
Hates_
As a side note this is reason I've always believed building an business/app of
any importance on-top of another site is just crazy. You're at their mercy and
there's nothing you can ever do to stop them shutting you out.

~~~
jfarmer
Every business is built on other businesses. In the 1800s if you wanted
distribution you had to play ball with the railroad barons.

This is just the 21st century equivalent.

Likewise, if you're building a destination website you're dependent on Google,
email spam lists (don't get blacklisted!), browser vendors (MSFT and ESPN once
conspired to make espn.com for IE-only), and even ISPs (see: Net Neutrality).

The risks are higher on Facebook and Twitter, but the upside is also higher.
For example, I launched a Facebook application late last week and it already
has 500k users. That kind of distribution is hard to get elsewhere.

~~~
dryicerx
There is a difference between those early dependence and Twitter. Twitter is
still young, it's uncertain, and worst it's future is really unpredictable
because it doesn't even have a business model to generate revenue yet.

Building on top of a business is sensible when you are depending on something
that's been there for a while, know it's dependable and have a reputation.
This twitter does not have.

If the same service as Twitter was provided by Google, Amazon or even
Microsoft, you know it's backed by something solid.

~~~
jfarmer
Like I said: risk and reward. From the article it's clear that Twitter was a
big benefit to his company. It became the #2 referrer after Google. Given the
network effect inherent in Twitter, I bet it would become #1 over time.

That's why he's so upset that Twitter cut him off.

So, yes, building on Twitter is riskier. Building on Facebook is riskier. But
as distribution channels they have huge upside.

If the risk is too high don't build and wait for the channels to become more
mature.

------
pj
I think Twitter here is making the correct decision.

I know it isn't happy for you, RobbieStats, but the ramifications for them,
whether you are breaking the law, or they are through allowing you to do it,
are tremendously not fun. As a business they need to err on the side of
caution. Look what Youtube went through with Viacom and some other content
creators.

Also, I think your article says that to have a case against you for trademark
infringement, they have to go after "everyone" who infringes, but I don't
believe that is true, I think they only have to defend it, but i don't know
exactly what that means or the extent to which it must be defended to be
defended at all.

Also sports franchises are pretty ruthless. They will sue you in court and
they will sue Twitter in court and they will win or it will cost you and
twitter a lot of money and it's just not worth it.

Also, I believe the actual numbers are owned by the industry as well. You have
to have written permission to reprint the statistics. If I remember correctly,
according to the copyright blurb at the beginning of games, techincally, you
aren't even supposed to _talk_ about the game after the game!

It's crazy, but that's what happens when there's a lot of money at stake,
people get crazy...

~~~
sachinag
You're wrong about the stats of the game. NBA v. Motorola cleared up that
stats - even real-time stats - are not an exhibition of the game and can be
freely disseminated as they are reports of factual occurrences. First useful
Google hit:
[http://lsolum.typepad.com/copyfutures/2004/09/several_of_my_...](http://lsolum.typepad.com/copyfutures/2004/09/several_of_my_r.html)
The sports leagues' disclaimers are empty nothingness.

IANAL, but I've been working on 1st Amendment stuff as a layperson since 1997.

~~~
lacker
Actually I don't think this issue is clear legally. In NBA v. Motorola it was
taken into account that Stats Inc gathered the statistics themselves which is
not the case here. Plus at least in some jurisdictions there is the "hot news"
doctrine that protects breaking news even though it is a fact. So the
disclaimers are not empty nothingness, it is still a legal grey area.

e.g.

[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/the-ap-hot-news-
and...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/the-ap-hot-news-and-
hotheaded-blogs/)

------
patio11
Without warning Twitter shuts down... 650 accounts controlled by the same
people.

You don't say.

~~~
shabda
Imo, There is a valid reason for 650 accounts. Plus twitter is interesting
because of 3rd party apps, so they should be responsive with support emails.

~~~
trickjarrett
They definitely should be more responsive, their customer service department
needs to be massively upsized. And a valid reason for 650 accounts is still
invalidated by the fact that it goes directly against their TOS.

~~~
Confusion
Against the letter, but not against the intention. As with the law, TOS's
necessarily have shortcomings, because they cannot possibly cover all
circumstances of every individual case. It would be nice if they didn't just
flaunt the letter of the TOS in his face, but would explain why they do not
want users like him. That would be a fair warning to others. As it stands,
it's anyones guess what is and what is not allowed.

~~~
patio11
You want a massively upsized CS department and an absence of hard-and-fast
rules enforced evenhandedly throughout the CS reps. This is "not a combo".

 _As it stands, it's anyones guess what is and what is not allowed._

See, right now, everyone knows what is not allowed: 650 accounts? Not allowed.
Its written right in the TOS.

With the massively increased CS department making individual decisions in an
arbitrary fashion, it would be like "650 accounts? Not allowed, unless you're
really a cool tech demo and drew Mary out of the pool, because she's a
softie."

------
silencio
I'm curious: did you at any point contact Twitter for their blessing (of your
650 accounts for this particular use)? I meant, before they started suspending
your accounts? Or even before you created the accounts?

~~~
RobbieStats
Yes, I contacted their bizdev email alias back in November. I got no response.

------
ivankirigin
Twitter is very open with how they like and don't like their system to be
used. They are the most open company I can think of with their API. I can
guarantee this wouldn't come as a surprise to the service maker. This is
coming from someone who makes an application that heavily uses twitter.

~~~
snorkel
Aside from that Twitter's API is very unreliable. I wouldn't recommend putting
Twitter API anywhere near the center of anyone's business plan. Again the
lesson is: don't trust the cloud.

------
ieatpaste
In addition to the multiple accounts which break TOC, it might also be a
direction in which they want to go with their "secret business models." This
might be loosely supported by the trending topics added to the user pages, but
this is largely due to my speculation.

~~~
didroe
I thought the secret was that there is no business model. :)

------
brm
And that my friends is why a business should never have all its eggs in one
basket or platform if you will

------
thej
They have blocked my friends @f1 account too.
<http://veetrag.net/2009/05/04/twitter-suspends-f1/>

------
cameldrv
Since they post odds, this may be more about the wire wager act, which
prohibits interstate transmission of sports gambling information.

------
andrewbadera
Perhaps you should deal with the API staff and not the support staff. You're
probably familiar with the dev list, right? Try contacting Doug Williams on
this.

