This week, the inter webs went all aflutter when Michael Sippey of Twitter announced the Changes coming in Version 1.1 of the Twitter API.
In general, Twitter is seeking to more tightly control the user experience and discourage active development of third-party client applications. Yet it seems like so much of the success of Twitter comes from the origin in lack of control. It was simple and the users built most of the conventions that Twitter relies on.
For a service like Twitter that is so simple and basic, will attempting to make it into something different end up killing it off? Will App.net or something else be the Facebook to Twitter’s Friendster or Myspace?
Even though much of the use of Twitter is on its own website, it seems like the most active users, and the reason that the service became successful comes form client software, all of which came from third-parties. Twitter’s official clients were originally written independently by Loren Brichter as Tweetie and then acquired (and then apparently left for dead.)
As Twitter is trying to build itself into a business, it’s also changing to dictate how the service is used, rather than building on the conventions that have evolved.
Web communities tend to take on their own unique and individual character and personality. Some, like Metafilter or Reddit are largely supportive and collaborative. Others, like 4chan or Funnyjunk take on personalities that are more anarchic or antagonistic. The communities that tend to have stronger community values are the ones who tend to have stronger moderation enforcing community norms, whether that is individual moderators like at Metafilter or the community norms that Twitter’s users established. In particular, the @username convention and the #hashtag convention both came from use, not from Twitter.
Image uploads were supported by third-party clients long before Twitter launched it’s own image hosting service.
And while if hoping to extend the Twitter service and sell it to advertisers, it makes more sense for it to be a website rather than a service that works across different software. But it seems more likely to alienate the user and developer ecosystem that Twitter enables. And because Twitter as it is today provides tremendous value to the users and developers, trying to recapture some of the value from the users and developers, rather than sell those users’ attention to advertisers seems like the better way to capture value, because it will encourage the users to use the site more.
By carefully and narrowly designating what the Twitter service is, rather than listening to what the most active users want, is Twitter going to be driving its most active users and third-party developers away from its service?
The most-active Twitter users seems to interact with the service mainly through Tweetdeck*, Tweetbot, or the rapidly stagnating Twitter apps rather than the website.
*Yes, Twitter own Tweetdeck, but it seems to be a vastly different experience than the Twitter website.
Developer Rules of the Road,
Terms of Service and Display Guidelines, which will become display rules.
Marco.org, Interpreting some of Twitter’s API changes: “I sure as hell wouldn’t build a business on Twitter, and I don’t think I’ll even build any nontrivial features on it anymore.”

Here’s an example of how overly aggressive tactics blow up in one’s face. And then taking that explosion and doubling down aggressively.
Matthew Inman writes and publishes The Oatmeal, one of the funniest comics on the web. Users at Funnyjunk.com reposted many of Inman’s comics. So Inman asked his readers how he should respond and then had some dialogue with the proprietor and denizens of Funnyjunk.
Then last week, Inman received a demand letter from Funnyjunk: FunnyJunk is threatening to file a federal lawsuit against me unless I pay $20,000 in damages. Alleging that The Oatmeal violated made false accusations of willful copyright infringement and infringed on Funnyjunk’s rights under the Lanham Act, Funnyjunk’s attorney demanded $20,000.
Inman’s attorney replied, as did Inman, who used IndieGoGo to ask his readers to raise the $20,000 and donate it to the National Wildlife Foundation and the American Cancer Society (as well as send a crude cartoon to the owners of Funnyjunk.)
After Inman raised more than $100,000, Funnyjunk’s attorney Charles Carreon went full Rakofsky to personally sue not only Inman, but also IndieGoGo, the National Wildlife Foundation and the American Cancer Society. The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part IV: Charles Carreon Sues Everybody: “On Friday, June 15, 2012, attorney Charles Carreon passed from mundane short-term internet notoriety into a sort of legal cartoon-supervillainy.”
Wow.

This is a test entry. Feel free to not get excited.

We’ve been here before, but now the Supreme Court is again hearing arguments on the FCC’s indecency standards, in particular the First Amendment aspects and the rule on fleeting expletives and broadcast.
Transcript: FCC v. Fox (Oral Arguments, Jan. 10, 2012)
Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog Many options on TV rules, “With one Justice testing the ultimate constitutionality of government controls on broadcast TV, another trolling for an exceedingly narrow approach, two others suggesting that technology may be overtaking the constitutional dispute, one signing himself up for rigorous morality policing, and one whose vote may really be crucial staying entirely silent, the Supreme Court on Tuesday wandered widely in its new exploration of the state of profanity and nudity on television and radio. The lively argument in the latest round of that controversy even had a lawyer pointing out portrayals of nudity in the courtroom decorations above the Justices’ heads.”
Adam Liptak, The New York Times, TV Decency Is a Puzzler for Justices, “In a rollicking Supreme Court argument that was equal parts cultural criticism and First Amendment doctrine, the justices on Tuesday considered whether the government still had good reason to regulate cursing and nudity on broadcast television. The legal bottom line was not easy to discern, though there seemed to be little sentiment for a sweeping overhaul of the current system, which subjects broadcasters to fines for showing vulgar programming that is constitutionally protected when presented on cable television or the Internet.”
Nina Totenberg, NPR: High Court Hears Arguments In FCC Indecency Case
“Inside the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, representing the Obama administration, said that Congress intended broadcast licenses to come with an obligation to meet certain decency standards — standards that would provide a safe haven for family viewing.”
Ruthann Robson, Constitutional Law Prof Blog FCC v. Fox Argument: On Naked Buttocks, Regulated Media, and the First Amendment “Both Fox (represented by Carter G Phillips) focused on the ‘fleeting expletive’ sanction based on Cher’s statement at an award ceremony and ABC (represented by Seth Waxman) focused on a nudity sanction based on an episode of NYPD Blue, argued against the FCC (represented by the Solicitor General Verrilli).”