Enable ability to block apps via Twitter or the API

[Jesse Stay]

Not going to name names, but there are a few really noisy apps out there right now.  It would be really nice if, via either the API (my preference as it would be less work on your part and fits well with my app), or the UI, you enabled users to block receiving Tweets generated from specific apps.  This would then punish the app developers for creating spammy apps and not the users themselves for just using what was put out there, making it much less of a mess to control.  Facebook does this, as does FriendFeed.  Any chance you could enable this (please???) for Twitter?

Thanks,

@Jesse

[Joel Strellner]

I second this request. Ideally via both web and API, API being
immediate and web when your UI guys can get to it.

[kyle...@gmail.com]

I completely agree with some type of blocking for specific apps. It
kills me that I am dealing with the annoyance of Facebook on Twitter.
Twitter... please for the love of God. Save us from spymaster.

@kyleplacy

[Doug Williams]

Interesting idea Jesse. I'll float this idea internally tomorrow and get some feedback.

Thanks,
Doug
--

Doug Williams
Twitter Platform Support
http://twitter.com/dougw

[Swaroop]

We have "source blocking" built into our service :)

[Carlos]

agreed, I'd like this as well.

On May 31, 6:52 pm, Jesse Stay <jesses...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Doug Williams]

Floated the idea. Until we funnel everyone through OAuth (that means no Basic Auth) this really isn't possible. It's something we'll keep in our back pockets for the long-term.

Great suggestion though, Jesse.

Cheers,

Doug

--

Doug Williams
Twitter Platform Support
http://twitter.com/dougw

[Developer In London]

Couldnt the app-id be made a required parameter for the API calls? That way it can still work with basic auth.

2009/6/2 Doug Williams <do...@twitter.com>

--
cashflowclublondon.co.uk

                      ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
                       `6_ 6  )   `-.  (     ).`-.__.`)
                       (_Y_.)'  ._   )  `._ `. ``-..-'
                     _..`--'_..-_/  /--'_.' ,'
                    (il),-''  (li),'  ((!.-'
.

[Chad Etzel]

No, it can't be required. Worse yet, it can be spoofed w/ basic auth,
so a "blocked" app could just change it's source parameter and appear
as something like TweetDeck.

-Chad

[Doug Williams]

Chad is correct. Until we have everyone pushed through a funnel where API keys are required or applications can be deduced (as with OAuth) we have no way of knowing which application actually sent an update or DM in some cases. Furthermore, we don't have the notion of tweet level spam reporting. Currently users are only able to flag accounts a spam through "@spam @username" or "d spam @username" updates.

So, until we develop tools to deal with spam on a per tweet-basis and have every application going through a pipe that we can control, application blocking is not a valuable use of our resources.

Thanks,

Doug
--

Doug Williams
Twitter Platform Support
http://twitter.com/dougw

[Developer In London]

But how would the blocked app work out the API key for TweetDeck unless TweetDeck makes their private API key public?

2009/6/2 Chad Etzel <jazz...@gmail.com>

[Jesse Stay]

Thanks for considering this Doug.  I figured it probably wouldn't be possible until 100% OAuth was in place, but at least the idea's out there.  Looking forward to when that happens!

@Jesse

[Developer In London]

Sorry, but I still cant agree on why asking for a API key on the normal API cannot solve this. A whole application can be banned/throttled/controlled using the API key if needed this way. At present applications register and gets API keys anyway, so all this will do is add an extra layer of authentication on API calls.

I think this is more an obsession with OAuth. ;-)

Nayeem

2009/6/2 Doug Williams <do...@twitter.com>

[Dean 'at' Cognation dot Net]

On May 31, 6:57 pm, "kylel...@gmail.com" <kylel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I completely agree with some type of blocking for specific apps. It
> kills me that I am dealing with the annoyance of Facebook on Twitter.
> Twitter... please for the love of God. Save us from spymaster.
>
> @kyleplacy
>

Isn't it more an issue that end user clients should be able to
implement 'spam' based on keywords.

Just being able to say i want to delete all tweets with the word
'spymaster' would cut down my traffic 5% in one hit.

Shouldn't be that hard for Tweetdeck/Twhirl etc to implement and
Twitter inc can iomplement this as a function for the Pro accounts for
people who use the browser to access Twitter directly.

Using hidden API codes etc just ads complexity not required, lets
enable the end users to choose what they do and dont want.



Cheers,
Dean