You completely missed the point of my post. It is a simple call to ethical analysis of the situation. Deeming different situations with similar outcomes (mass following or unwanted solicitation) I asked for simple justification of the community at large. In fact had I left out Deans name it could have been any generic email to the group.
As for your TOS statement, I never said a company could not do so, in fact I said they could. But, the only legal recourse to a violation of this type is suspension of accounts at this level. If after account suspension Dean (or anyone else) created new accounts and utilized those to perform the same action then Twitter (or any entity) could then prove malice. For naming, go back to your law books (I know I did), his name implies the service that his product provides (IE: it answers the door when an interesting party comes by). In fact, twitter is doing further damage to this argument by not going after those "good guys" on their list (a trademark must be enforced in ALL cases or it shall be revoked). Twitter did not pursue revocation of the name in proper fashion with accordance to the law (they told him to hand it over and didn't offer compensation). They also did not provide the proper statue of 30 days prior written notice (note that in the US email communication is not considered valid notice and thus is why if you win a contest they have to send you a written notice you have to send back as well). Now, can we get back to my 4 points/questions with your answers? What of the 4 do you feel would be ethical and why, I'm simply curious as to the community reaction? - Jeremy On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:30 PM, David Fisher <tib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jeremy, > > The problem with your logic is that you don't feel that a company can > set a ToS for how they want users to use their service. They can. > > There are legitimate and non-legitimate uses of Twitter. This guy > screwed up, and overreacted. Case closed. Twitter's got him on the > naming issue and the ToS issue (which they can change any time they > like).