Oops Now You Can Track the Tweets Politicians Tried to Delete(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Oops Now You Can Track the Tweets Politicians Tried to Delete
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/oops-now-you-can-track-the-tweets-politicians-tried-to-delete/257853/?google_editors_picks=true
17 comments
This looks like it breaches Twitters rules of the road. Specifically items 1.D and 2.4.B.
https://dev.twitter.com/terms/api-terms
https://dev.twitter.com/terms/api-terms
4. Be a good partner to Twitter
B. Respect the features and functionality embedded with or included in Twitter Content or the Twitter API. Do not attempt to interfere with, intercept, disrupt, filter, or disable any features of the Twitter API or Twitter service, and you should only surface actions that are organically displayed on Twitter.
For example, your Service should execute the unfavorite and delete actions by removing all relevant messaging and Twitter Content, not by publicly displaying to other end users that the Tweet was unfavorited or deleted.
Edit: I know there are some exceptions. For example, the Library of Congress (in the US) is building a permanent archive of all tweets older than 6 months. They have said that if you wait longer than that to delete your tweet, they won't remove it from the archive. I wonder if Twitter would consider a 24-hour rule for official political accounts? If the tweet is left up for 24 hours, then even if it's deleted from the twitter stream, you don't have to delete it from your archive.
B. Respect the features and functionality embedded with or included in Twitter Content or the Twitter API. Do not attempt to interfere with, intercept, disrupt, filter, or disable any features of the Twitter API or Twitter service, and you should only surface actions that are organically displayed on Twitter.
For example, your Service should execute the unfavorite and delete actions by removing all relevant messaging and Twitter Content, not by publicly displaying to other end users that the Tweet was unfavorited or deleted.
Edit: I know there are some exceptions. For example, the Library of Congress (in the US) is building a permanent archive of all tweets older than 6 months. They have said that if you wait longer than that to delete your tweet, they won't remove it from the archive. I wonder if Twitter would consider a 24-hour rule for official political accounts? If the tweet is left up for 24 hours, then even if it's deleted from the twitter stream, you don't have to delete it from your archive.
Thanks, I should have indeed just copy and pasted the terms. Here is 1.D
Respect the privacy and sharing settings of Twitter Content. Do not share, or encourage or facilitate the sharing of protected Twitter Content. Promptly change your treatment of Twitter Content (for example, deletions, modifications, and sharing options) as changes are reported through the Twitter API.
Respect the privacy and sharing settings of Twitter Content. Do not share, or encourage or facilitate the sharing of protected Twitter Content. Promptly change your treatment of Twitter Content (for example, deletions, modifications, and sharing options) as changes are reported through the Twitter API.
The most important thing in politics is transparency, which many politicians
vehemently oppose for their own selfish reasons. But, as the representatives
of the people, they have to be held accountable for everything they do. Little
steps such as this wonderful project go a long way towards this goal.
Or you can look at it the other way that they're people who make mistakes but we somehow want them to magically be perfect human beings.
And then you can look on something like this as a bit weird and creepy, the digital equivalent to the ultra nerd you come across at gaming night who just has to correct you about constantly because he hasn't learnt basic social skills.
And then you can look on something like this as a bit weird and creepy, the digital equivalent to the ultra nerd you come across at gaming night who just has to correct you about constantly because he hasn't learnt basic social skills.
Interestingly, I pretty much expected this answer. Yes, politicians are, in the
end, humans, too. They make errors and we need to acknowledge that. However,
being held accountable for what you do does not exclude that. The point is not
to punish for every little error, it's to be able to differentiate the small
errors from major fuck-ups, deliberate deception and corruption - which is of
course, as I said, not in the interest of a lot of politicians.
I don't think this is creepy, either. If you decide to become a politician, this should just be part of what you sign up for - either accept that you will be held fully accountable for everything you do and say, or don't become a politician.
I don't think this is creepy, either. If you decide to become a politician, this should just be part of what you sign up for - either accept that you will be held fully accountable for everything you do and say, or don't become a politician.
Is there a human filter on this stuff?
I ask because, say a politician posts and then deletes something embarrassing on a personal level but which isn't particularly relevant to their political stance.
They are human beings too and I don't feel there's much to gain by being a dick and re-posting this sort of thing on an automated basis. It will just get their backs up and make them a lot more wary about what they post in future. Net loss for transparency on political issues.
This is something traditional journalists are good at -- knowing when to break a story and when to show a bit of discretion in order to earn people's trust and avoid unnecessarily putting people on the defensive.
I ask because, say a politician posts and then deletes something embarrassing on a personal level but which isn't particularly relevant to their political stance.
They are human beings too and I don't feel there's much to gain by being a dick and re-posting this sort of thing on an automated basis. It will just get their backs up and make them a lot more wary about what they post in future. Net loss for transparency on political issues.
This is something traditional journalists are good at -- knowing when to break a story and when to show a bit of discretion in order to earn people's trust and avoid unnecessarily putting people on the defensive.
> This is something traditional journalists are good at -- knowing when to break a story and when to show a bit of discretion in order to earn people's trust and avoid unnecessarily putting people on the defensive.
I disagree. This is precisely where traditional journalists go bad. It's also where their biases show. (See Obama's Chicago church vs Romney's Mormonism for an example.)
Trading (non) coverage for access is PR.
I disagree. This is precisely where traditional journalists go bad. It's also where their biases show. (See Obama's Chicago church vs Romney's Mormonism for an example.)
Trading (non) coverage for access is PR.
What's the answer though? every politician should be hounded in every aspect of their private life just so we can avoid accusations of bias?
That's going to drive good people out of politics. (Cue jokes about 'they already left a while ago').
Perhaps in part it's an american thing. The political culture there seems particularly personal and nasty. It's not something I'd like to see spread unnecessarily.
(And by the way I was referring specifically to discretion on non-politically-relevant aspects of people's personal life, not selective coverage of political topics. Although I realise it's a blurry line, one has to draw it somewhere.)
That's going to drive good people out of politics. (Cue jokes about 'they already left a while ago').
Perhaps in part it's an american thing. The political culture there seems particularly personal and nasty. It's not something I'd like to see spread unnecessarily.
(And by the way I was referring specifically to discretion on non-politically-relevant aspects of people's personal life, not selective coverage of political topics. Although I realise it's a blurry line, one has to draw it somewhere.)
> every politician should be hounded in every aspect of their private life just so we can avoid accusations of bias?
Actually, certain politicians are "hounded in every aspect" today. If you think that's wrong....
> (And by the way I was referring specifically to discretion on non-politically-relevant aspects of people's personal life, not selective coverage of political topics. Although I realise it's a blurry line, one has to draw it somewhere.)
You forget, the personal is political.
Disagree? You'll have to take that up with the folks who are currently hounding.
Actually, certain politicians are "hounded in every aspect" today. If you think that's wrong....
> (And by the way I was referring specifically to discretion on non-politically-relevant aspects of people's personal life, not selective coverage of political topics. Although I realise it's a blurry line, one has to draw it somewhere.)
You forget, the personal is political.
Disagree? You'll have to take that up with the folks who are currently hounding.
John Boehner is on the ball.
Speaker John Boehner ( R )
You know what else has been deleted? Jobs in the Obama economy. Where are the jobs? #politwoops
Speaker John BoehnerDeleted 13 minutes ago after 36 seconds, originally posted via web
Speaker John Boehner ( R )
You know what else has been deleted? Jobs in the Obama economy. Where are the jobs? #politwoops
Speaker John BoehnerDeleted 13 minutes ago after 36 seconds, originally posted via web
At least one member of his social media staff is pretty smart. Posting a tweet (with a #politwoops hashtag, no less!) deleting it, knowing it would appear on the politwoops site in a perfect context for his message.
see: http://politwoops.sunlightfoundation.com/user/SpeakerBoehner
see: http://politwoops.sunlightfoundation.com/user/SpeakerBoehner
It would be much more interesting to see what they try to reverse in speeches. I know that various news and media outlets (including the Daily Show) highlight this from time-to-time, but unless you've watched all of their speeches, I don't know of any way to easily see what politicians have said over time and how their views have changed, evolved, or reversed.
How exactly can they get to tweets that have only been posted for a few seconds (and then deleted)? Does the API still return deleted tweets for some time?
the streaming API publishes the tweets as they come in. Afterwards, if the tweet has been deleted, the streaming API sends out a delete message. That's... the only way to do real time. Otherwise it... wouldn't be real time.
Maybe they need a time delay - http://bleep.ly/
If there were examples like that, maybe we'd really be able to see what this service is useful for. Oh well, too bad nothing like that ever happened.
[edit: just noticed all their examples of bad tweets come from one party. Strange. Is the other party immune to bad tweets?]