Comments on: @twitterspam http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/ Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:01:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: socialized » So Twitter does have spam after all! http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/#comment-674 socialized » So Twitter does have spam after all! Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:14:36 +0000 http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/#comment-674 [...] some interesting discussions here and on Twitter back in April about the spam situation on Twitter, including some spirited [...] [...] some interesting discussions here and on Twitter back in April about the spam situation on Twitter, including some spirited [...]

]]> By: A Business Case for Twitter « Social Media Mavens / Experts http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/#comment-345 A Business Case for Twitter « Social Media Mavens / Experts Wed, 07 May 2008 22:16:06 +0000 http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/#comment-345 [...] mass communication application, has reached what appears to be critical mass. The howls of “SPAM!” and rants about rules are pretty good indications that Twitter has a solid toe-hold in the social [...] [...] mass communication application, has reached what appears to be critical mass. The howls of “SPAM!” and rants about rules are pretty good indications that Twitter has a solid toe-hold in the social [...]

]]> By: A Business Case for Twitter | Social Media Group http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/#comment-334 A Business Case for Twitter | Social Media Group Mon, 05 May 2008 19:16:43 +0000 http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/#comment-334 [...] mass communication application, has reached what appears to be critical mass. The howls of “SPAM!” and rants about rules are pretty good indications that Twitter has a solid toe-hold in the social [...] [...] mass communication application, has reached what appears to be critical mass. The howls of “SPAM!” and rants about rules are pretty good indications that Twitter has a solid toe-hold in the social [...]

]]> By: Ike http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/#comment-236 Ike Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:39:37 +0000 http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/#comment-236 @Jessica - You are not "spamming" simply by monitoring someone's Tweetstream. It is the blatant act of doing so (in some cases MULTIPLE times) to get attention for yourself, or for your page-views/clickthru rates. @colin - Nearly half of the truly interesting people I have connected with on Twitter were not known to me until they followed me. When I get the notification, I check their profile to see what they write, and if they interact with others I already know. I click across to their listed sites, to see if I might be interested in subscribing to their feeds. If someone chooses to follow me with the express purpose of getting me to notice their site where they are celling make enhancement, hypnosis, weight-loss, baldness cures, or how to get rich in real estate... ...AND they have a following/followed-by ration of 20:1... ...AND they only have FIVE FREAKING UPDATES... ...AND they are all tinyurl links back to their SPAM BLOG... ...THEN it is SPAM. I can't see how you can possibly notice it for anything OTHER than what it is. By your definitions, a SPAM email isn't really spam until you decide to open it. Never mind that it's stolen my bandwidth and server space, and now a few seconds of my attention. By your definitions, a SPAM fax about a toner scam isn't really spam unless you bother to read it. @Jessica - You are not “spamming” simply by monitoring someone’s Tweetstream. It is the blatant act of doing so (in some cases MULTIPLE times) to get attention for yourself, or for your page-views/clickthru rates.

@colin - Nearly half of the truly interesting people I have connected with on Twitter were not known to me until they followed me. When I get the notification, I check their profile to see what they write, and if they interact with others I already know. I click across to their listed sites, to see if I might be interested in subscribing to their feeds.

If someone chooses to follow me with the express purpose of getting me to notice their site where they are celling make enhancement, hypnosis, weight-loss, baldness cures, or how to get rich in real estate…

…AND they have a following/followed-by ration of 20:1…

…AND they only have FIVE FREAKING UPDATES…

…AND they are all tinyurl links back to their SPAM BLOG…

…THEN it is SPAM. I can’t see how you can possibly notice it for anything OTHER than what it is.

By your definitions, a SPAM email isn’t really spam until you decide to open it. Never mind that it’s stolen my bandwidth and server space, and now a few seconds of my attention.

By your definitions, a SPAM fax about a toner scam isn’t really spam unless you bother to read it.

]]> By: Colin Carmichael http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/#comment-235 Colin Carmichael Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:27:00 +0000 http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/#comment-235 Hey Joel, Glad we can have this debate - and I do think it's an important one to have. Whether my arguments are simplistic or miss the mark, I'll leave to our respective readers to decide. I guess my biggest problem with the TwitterSpam exists argument is that it is predicated on the notion that you are required to: a) receive follower notifications b) 'validate' new followers c) 'follow back' everyone who follows you None of these are required for Twitter to be meaningful platform for mass conversation. I simply suggest that it is posisble to allow the conversation itself to determine whose tweets to follow rather than the rather arbitrary act of following. Hey Joel,

Glad we can have this debate - and I do think it’s an important one to have. Whether my arguments are simplistic or miss the mark, I’ll leave to our respective readers to decide.

I guess my biggest problem with the TwitterSpam exists argument is that it is predicated on the notion that you are required to:
a) receive follower notifications
b) ‘validate’ new followers
c) ‘follow back’ everyone who follows you

None of these are required for Twitter to be meaningful platform for mass conversation. I simply suggest that it is posisble to allow the conversation itself to determine whose tweets to follow rather than the rather arbitrary act of following.

]]> By: Stop Twitter Spam » Colin Carmichael gets no Twitter Spam http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/#comment-234 Stop Twitter Spam » Colin Carmichael gets no Twitter Spam Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:26:08 +0000 http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/#comment-234 [...] an opposing view, take a look at SocializedPR’s response to Colin’s claim that Twitter has no spam. Upon receiving a new follower, the majority of [...] [...] an opposing view, take a look at SocializedPR’s response to Colin’s claim that Twitter has no spam. Upon receiving a new follower, the majority of [...]

]]> By: Michael http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/#comment-233 Michael Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:16:41 +0000 http://www.socializedpr.com/twitterspam/#comment-233 I've read this post several times and I think that your thoughts only strengthen Colin's argument. There are many gross presumptions of what Twitter 'is' - you seem to see it as a very serious social networking tool - nothing less... How you equate your voluntary investigation of a follower as a “forced, unwanted marketing messages” still eludes me I am not convinced that there are any obvious ethical rules for Twitter use - which is the premise you're using to substantiate your argument. Twitter is clearly not behaving as you would like it too. Too bad. I’ve read this post several times and I think that your thoughts only strengthen Colin’s argument. There are many gross presumptions of what Twitter ‘is’ - you seem to see it as a very serious social networking tool - nothing less… How you equate your voluntary investigation of a follower as a “forced, unwanted marketing messages” still eludes me I am not convinced that there are any obvious ethical rules for Twitter use - which is the premise you’re using to substantiate your argument. Twitter is clearly not behaving as you would like it too. Too bad.

]]>