Immediately posting a tweet without my say-so? For shame. An abuse of trust in this day in age and a reason I hate Twitter/Facebook universal sign-ins. Access revoked. Goodbye.
There was a checkbox (automatically pre-checked) that actually triggered that Tweet. Not saying it's any better, but I did see the box. (picture here: http://elsewhe.re/Cklw)
In Chrome (Win 16.0.912.63), the checkbox and description are there for a split second as the page loads and then disappears. I turned off Adblock in case that was the cause, but the checkbox is still invisible even when I do that.
Adblock is the only extension installed, so I don't know why the checkbox is invisible to me. I'll assume it's a bug - but figured I'll call it out here in case people signup and then wonder why Timekiwi made an 'authorised' tweet advertising their services.
I'm seeing it currently (Win, Chrome, Adblock). I don't remember seeing it yesterday, but not sure if it's because they updated the page or that I'm not used to looking for service details on signup.
Either way, it's disingenuous, IMO. You can call it "user error" and ignore the issue, but I doubt I'm the only one.
Does someone have any data on whether people gain net traction by treating early adopters like promotional tools with shitty opt-out gimmicks like this?
Maybe early adopters were willing to suffer through more in the olden days or still are?
It seems like a stupid way to go about creating hype, loyalty, and traction for your start-up.
I am immediately skeptical of any service that doesn't explicitly state "We will not post to your Facebook".
I think this should be built into the Facebook Platform TOS somehow. Sites that disingenuously post stuff after signup without indicating so give a bad name to Facebook Platform as an authentication device.
At the end of the day, it should be the user that grants individual permissions, not an all-or-nothing application request. (See Also: the Facebook permission add-ons that do just that.)
I agree with fookyong, that the request to post things on my behalf is an immediate yellow flag for any application except for a Twitter client.
It should've been unchecked by default, because that's what a majority of new sign-ups would expect/want. Instead you could ask for a promotional tweet on users' behalf once they become established users (by some reasonable metric).
I don't disagree, and at least there was a checkbox, but blaming the user for what's at best a UX issue and at worst an abuse of trust doesn't bode well for a new service.
Moreover, they're asking users to make a decision about whether to promote their service without first using it. I think you'd get more engagement if you populated your timeline and there was a message that said, "Hey, isn't this cool? Let us know what you think, or tell your friends about it. Thanks for using <SERVICE>!"
So...what's the target audience here? I know it seems self evident that everyone is just dying for another way to show what they've been sharing online...but it seems that the people who want to share a lot will be satisfied with Facebook and G+, both of which give greater granularity for privacy than does this.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree. This is _not_ borderline offensive. Don't be silly. It might be a stupid oversight, but yeah I think you're getting a bit offended by nothing.
> They're using the fruit as their logo. What part of New Zealander culture did they appropriate for this site?
People can hold in their heads that grapes and grapefruit are different things, so it always bemuses me when they can't do the same thing with kiwi and kiwifruit. Sure, if you don't know otherwise, "kiwi" may look like a useful contraction of kiwifruit. However, once informed that
The kiwi is a bird native to New Zealand; the word "kiwi" comes to English from the language of the indigenous people of New Zealand; the bird is a national symbol of the country; New Zealanders colloquially refer to themselves as Kiwis, after the bird, with a history going back a century or more; the term "kiwi-land" is occasionally used fondly as a name for the country; the term kiwifruit was coined only in the 1960s
then continuing to use the term "kiwi" for the fruit is factually wrong, and even disrespectful. Sure, you yourself might not care -- but you can see why New Zealanders might and do care.
This website uses a stylised kiwifruit as its logo, but let's also look at the terminology they're using:
"Latest kiwis", "Kiwi of the day", "Welcome to kiwi land"
Are the people behind the website New Zealanders, or associated with New Zealand in some way? Not as far as I can tell. Ergo, appropriation.
(Even if the website authors were New Zealanders themselves, the usage would still not be appropriate, of course. But New Zealanders would not have used such terminology on their dinky website because for them it already has established meaning and mana, rather than being just a random cool word to be stolen.)
For memory... Kiwis are called "kiwifruit" in Australia and NZ, and "kiwis" in most other places. Before the 1970's they were called "Chinese gooseberries", coming from the Yangtse river basin. Because they also grew well in NZ, the NZ fruit marketing board gave them a new catchy name to promote exports them during May to August, when they were out of season in the Northern hemisphere.
By your same argument, perhaps kiwifruit should be renamed back to "Chinese Gooseberries".
I'm going to guess it failed because it had 20 years of "kiwifruit" and increased American-audience-awareness that it was a fruit going against it. Otherwise I'd be all for it, though I must ask: why "Zespri"?
They still brand and export all kiwifruit from NZ as Zespri (http://www.zespri.com/). Country of origin labeling has no doubt made this irrelevant to the average consumer though. If I remember correctly, the name was a bit of a mystery to most kiwis at the time.
Do you also take offense to calling it a kiwifruit? By your logic, it's just as disrespectful, and just as much of a cultural appropriation - dropping 'fruit' from the name of a fruit is merely rational and efficient (edit: once a large amount of the population knows it's a fruit, hence its inclusion at the beginning).
Yes, but the context in question is "names for a group of people", since that's the context the site is using the term in. lancewiggs' point is there's already a meaning for this word in this context.
You could argue in the same way against any application theme being called "black", or for the standard printed-book color scheme being called "black on white" (omg, sexual overtones!). At what point does it become ridiculous? Does it make more sense to grab some other random word and offend someone else, or maybe make up a new one?
Does it make sense for them to take offense if I tweet that "I eat kiwis for breakfast every day"? And what in the world will we do if some language comes has "Wiki" as some great insult, rename Wikipedia?
I'm going on far too long for there to be any benefit to continuing... my question is simply this: what's the line which makes one uproar ridiculous, and another righteous? And in what way does this cross it?
Did you see the section on the front page where it describes recent new users as "Latest kiwis"? I.e an attempt to create a shorthand description for one group of people (their customers), using a word already used to (self-)describe another group of people (and that has been for decades).
None of your examples are of that category, taking a word with a pre-existing meaning in a given context and trying to give it a new meaning for commercial gain within that samecontext.
Yes, it's puralizing a noun. It happens all-the-frickin'-time in English.
edit: as far as examples in detail, I have none, but I would honestly be extremely surprised if there were fewer than a dozen in the world's current state, probably hundreds through time. If I come up with one, I'll be sure to include it.
In the meantime: do you wish to argue that all such acts (name of culture => modified name as product => simplification dropping the modification) are offensive, or is this one somehow worse? I ask not to ridicule, but that this stance seems (to me) to be relatively new or rare, and favoring this instance as something far more offensive than I would find it if applied to me (Best Buy's Geek Squad being a mostly similar example, OTOH. I find them mildly annoying, but nothing more).
Basically, you (the collective-you, that is) have a point, but I and probably many others here think you're overreacting, though we might be swayed by a convincing argument.
Well as a New Zealander, I can tell you that the label "latest kiwis", was weird and confusing to me. "Latest kiwis? you can become a New Zealander by signing up with some random website now?" New Zealanders themselves and friendly foreigners have used this word to describe the people of this country for decades. Nobody in NZ uses "kiwi" to describe a fruit (that would be a kiwifruit).
Which was probably quickly resolved though, since that makes no sense, and would put you at odds with a significantly-greater population (like, 100x or more) which has viewed 'kiwi' as the fruit for a decade or two, and 'kiwifruit' for a couple decades more.
Put in context of myself, if I saw a site called "TimeWisconsinite" that allowed you to create "Wisconsinites", my first thought wouldn't be to assume you can create people or register for voting rights in Wisconsin, and even if it was, I wouldn't assume that for more than an instant. And if, say, Chinese turns out to have a word that sounds the same (maybe adopted because they imported our cheese and were so wowed by it that it spread through their culture), I'd find it humorous and borderline flattering that Wisconsin had reached such wide influence (billions!).
The word kiwi is unmistakeable, short, cool and indigenous to our country. We know what it means, and have invested in the "brand" if you like for over a hundred years. With things like seriously disproportionate losses in two world wars. Yes those fighting men were Kiwis. If someone wants to wrongly use it to refer to a fruit, that's their problem.
I'd also suggest, with respect, that the label "Wisconsinite" is a rather lame and unattractive one. Let's imagine you came from another state, with a much cooler alternate name for proud natives. Imagine you were a Hoosier. Now do you think you'd be so thrilled if some website decided a Hoosier wasn't what you thought it was, instead it was some view of your twitter feeds (or something) ?
