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.
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.
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?
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.
So TechCrunch behaved like jackasses and showed stuff Twitter didn't want to have shown, while according to your theory using Twitter as a way to make money, and that's okay?
It's called biting the hand that feeds you, and it's an old old saying. If TC still hasn't figured out it's a bad idea, nuts to them.
I'm probably slightly playing devils advocate but I don't mean to be controversial for the sake of it, I just think this is interesting.
TC is media/journalism and even if that's at a tabloid level personally I do believe that companies shouldn't withdraw privileges or sanction a media company based on unfavorable stories being written about them.
I think its a bad precedent to set even on this minor scale.
But TechCrunch is wholly unprofessional. They have no standards. You can't have morals when you're dealing with amoral people.
Say what you will about Mashable—and I could say tons—they generally play the game earnestly and fairly. While I don't hate TechCrunch and enjoy a few of their articles, it's a scum site with scum standards.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
> 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}
> 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.
Of course it's just going to be a list of popular twitter users... How else could they compile a list? It's not like you've taken some likes/dislikes survey. When you first join, they have no data on you at all.
How would you propose that given a completely random person (from anywhere in the world, any culture) you compile of list of 'interesting' people/website that are relevant to that person's specific interests? Oh, and by the way you're not allowed to know anything about that person other than their email address.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.