I agree my comparison to dictatorships is a stretch, but I was in a poetic mood and trying to emphasize the point that clarity is better than ambiguity. Twitter is obviously doing a tremendous job dealing with their explosive growth and dynamic nature of this new medium they've created. That said, capricious rules are also clearly as much an obstacle to growth as the problems (ie, spam) they are intended to prevent. When considerable investments in accounts are nullified in the blink of an eye by suspensions for which no notice, reason, or remediation is offered, entrepreneurs, marketers, investors, and individuals that could be great assets to the community lose faith and trust in continuing to be part of it.
> The issue is a quick follow and then unfollowing if not reciprocated. Would be very helpful to know the definition of "quick" as relates to following churn suspensions. As far as how general "bulk unfollow" relates to the type of patterned unfollowing that constitutes "following churn": If a user is inspired by Scoble's post to wipe their friends list clean the same week they have added hundreds of followers, it is unclear if they risk suspension? Seems such a sequence lead to suspension of a friend's account (though of course one does not receive any feedback on the exact reason for suspension and she may not be interpreting the situation correctly.)