@ and hashtags came from IRC and retweets (back when it was the RT....) just evolved
edit: although disappointingly he seems to use this fact as quite a personal branding tool now
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Messina_(open-source_adv...
---
twit
noun informal
noun: twit; plural noun: twits
a silly or foolish person.
Previously (sometime last year, IIRC) Jack Dorsey asked developers for a second chance. I don't see how this lines up with that, is it that now we can pay them to access artificially capped functionality? This was never the problem for me, and in the meantime, nearly all of the devs seem to have [wisely] moved on.
I'm not interested in participating in another one-sided relationship with a company who behaves as Twitter has - changing the functionality and rules at the drop of a hat.
Except that they didn't. There wasn't even any discussion, it was just "We're capping OAuth tokens.". Developers offered to pay for access, users offered to pay for the ability to use 3rd party apps.
If they didn't want to go down that path then Twitter could've easily required developers to show monetised tweets/ads.
They killed a community due to arrogance. And it backfired big.
The problem with Twitter was more serious: they never gave a concise and frictionless way to pay for the API. For example, Google innovation with AdWords was providing a self and quick service to put ads while other providers like Yahoo required a process with a lot of friction. Twitter logic was prehistoric.
What genius thought “let’s punish developers in our ecosystem by putting a cap on their lifetime earnings” should be taken out back and summarily executed.
I keep recommending everyone to abandon the official apps and use e.g. Tweetbot because the official apps suck compared to 3rd party (commercial messages alone is a dealbreaker) - but do peolpe then take my advice and go download tweetbot only to find they cant auth? That would be bad...