Twitter goes full douchebag

Twitter is to block most third-party apps, which don't comply with their strict rules on access.

We've written, at length, on Twitter's attempts to safeguard the profitability of its network against all-comers, so this shouldn't come as any surprise: the company has confirmed that, from March 2013, they will begin enforcing a de facto ban on third-party apps.

The ban is revealed in two passages in a post to developers by Twitter's director of consumer content, Michael Sippey. The first tells developers that the company's "display guidelines" will become "display requirements", while the second explains that from now on, any service with more than one million users will need special permission from Twitter to continue growing.

The display requirements are an incredibly strict set of requirements which not only hit their intended target, third-party consumer clients like Tweetbot, Econfon or Ubersocial, but also a huge number of unintended ones – Jason Kottke says that his aggregation site Stellar meets just four of the 16 requirements, while Marco Arment, developer of the popular Instapaper reading app, thinks that his "liked by friends" feature will have to be pulled, or at least rewritten, to comply.

Other rules look likely to hit services like Flipboard (which breaks 5.a., "tweets that are grouped together into a timeline should not be rendered with non-Twitter content. e.g. comments, updates from other networks") and Storify and Favstar (which break 3.b., "no other social or 3rd party actions may be attached to a Tweet"). Or they would, had Twitter not clarified that actually, those latter two are the "good" apps. Ryan Sarver, the company's director of platform, tweeted that they are what they want in the ecosystem.

This ought to be good news - two of the most useful third party apps are safe - but in fact, it's even more upsetting. It shows that, from the off, Twitter's rules all contain an implicit "...but you can ignore these if we like you." If that is the case, it's not hard to imagine that they also contain an implicit "...and no matter how well you follow these, if we don't like you, you're off the service." Everything using the network does so at the capricious whim of its overlords.

The million user limit is even more indiscriminately applied. Any application, no matter what it does or how well it complies with the published rules, needs to "work with [Twitter] directly" to get more users than that. It is, essentially, a rule that gives the company carte blanch to pick and choose whether any company getting too big can be allowed to grow.

Most companies try to keep customers by keeping customers happy. Twitter is clear in its intentions: it wants to keep customers by making it extraordinarily difficult for them to leave. It is holding its network hostage; you can go, but you can't take your friends with you.

In July, when Twitter first acted on their intentions to block clients which "mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter consumer client experience" I wrote that:

That is bad enough for the company, but up to now, the users of those apps are a minority on the service. The vast majority of twitterers use the website itself, or one of the official clients on mobile devices.

But with these changes, Twitter hasn't just hit the apps used by a small (nerdy) minority of users. There are going to be very few Twitter users who aren't affected in some way or another by this attempt to turn the site into a Facebook-style walled garden.

Ben Brooks, author of the Brooks Review, sums up the news:

We like to make analogies to Apple in tech blogging circles, so here goes: this is the moment in Twitter’s life where they kicked Steve Jobs out of the company and told Sculley to run it.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Flickr/Jacob Enos
Show Hide image

Personal experiences – not just biology – shape who you find attractive

Researchers find past experiences play a role in identifying why people are attracted to certain individuals.

A new study suggests personal experiences influence our attraction to our preferred partners. It was previously thought genes played a bigger role, as they do in forming other examples of behaviour and character traits. Just reflect on the number of times you've been singled out by a family member for acting like one of your parents, either offensively or in a praiseworthy way.

There are certain characteristics that lead people to judge particular faces as more attractive than others, such as the level of symmetry. However, people still dispute others' opinions when judging facial attractiveness – it's subjective. After all, what else is the purpose of the romantic lead's sassy best friend in any rom-com or book? Or just think how boring conversations with your friends would be without such intense and passionate disagreements.

The researchers used twins as participants in the study in order to monitor these differences and disagreements in opinion. This was necessary because twins are, by definition, genetically identical, allowing the scientists to rule out genetic differences as a reason in explaining their findings.

A total of 547 sets of identical twins and 214 sets of fraternal twins (siblings sharing half of their DNA) were asked to judge the facial attractiveness of 102 female faces and 98 male faces, and give each face a rating based on preference. The results showed, on average, the twins agreed with each other 48 per cent of the time, and disagreed on facial attractiveness 52 per cent. Had the numbers been closer for both the identical and fraternal groups, this would have shown genes were more influential in determining our levels of attraction to others.

The study concluded the reason behind this difference was primarily based on an individual's unique environmental factors (the scientific phrase for "past experiences"), at 78 per cent.

Previous studies have shown aesthetic preferences are based on a range of other factors too, including socioeconomic and cultural features, the rater's own facial features and also personality. (See, it's not always about looks.) The authors were also able to determine how our genes influence facial recognition during this same experiment, if not our preferences.

Discovering that a personality characteristic is influenced by our environment is another highlight in the field of behavioural genetics, as it was previously thought "nature beats nurture" in many aspects of an individual's behaviour. However, this study shows that a person's experiences are unique even between family members.