Everyday, it seems, I see a few mentions of "Twitter Spam" in my Twitter timeline. Most times, I simply ignore them, but twice in the past two weeks I’ve gotten into protracted debates about what is and isn’t "Twitter Spam." I thought it time to to elaborate on my position on the matter: Twitter spam is impossible. It simply can’t exist. Why? Because Twitter is an entirely opt-in environment – you are in control of the messages you receive.
Most of the complaints about TwitterSpam seem to originate with an "illegitimate" Twitterer following thousands of people all at once. Keep in mind that following someone on Twitter is similar to subscribing to a blogger’s RSS feed – with a couple bonuses. First, you receive an email when someone subscribes to your Tweet – which I’m sure FeedBurner could do for your feeds if they thought it would be useful. Second, you can see who is following you. Cool.
I’ve gotten in the habit of challenging claims of Twitter spam, and response is becoming consistent. It begins with claims that the ‘notification email’ about a Twitter follow makes it TwitterSpam. When I counter with the fact that you can disable the notification email, there are usually claims of ‘illegitimate’ Twitterbots following thousands of people but not offering any value beyond pushing brands. The claim is usually stated as if a bot following you brings with it some obligation to follow back.
Following is not a social act
I get the Twitter follow notifications in my inbox – but I’m more than willing to turn them off if they become to frequent. Sometimes, I’ll recognize the name and make the effort to return the follow. Most times, though, I won’t do that until I have a social reason to – and that reason is conversation. Following is not a social act. Speaking to me through Twitter is. That means that 50,000 people could follow me, but I feel no obligation to return the favour until they’ve reached out to me via an @ reply.
My most recent spat erupted when Shannon Whitley (@swhitley) complained when the customer service Twitter account for Pandora (@pandora_radio) followed him. I countered that I appreciated @pandora_radio following me after I had Tweeted about the service because it meant I could DM them with questions, etc – which I have done.
Your Say
Shannon was joined by a few others who agreed with him, so I offered to include their thoughts here – my responses in bolded italics.
Joel Postman (@jpostman) offers these three points:
- Twitter spam exists because once you receive a follow, you may have to check the user’s profile to determine the nature of the follower. You have thus received an unwanted advertising/marketing message. Colin: Why do you need to check the nature of the follower? You wouldn’t/couldn’t do that for your RSS feed, would you? There is no expectation of privacy on Twitter. There is no reason beyond sheer curiosity or ego to check out folks who follow you.
- Spam is an old term applied to new media in Twitter’s situation.The role of email is minimal on Twitter, and email is where spam traditionally lives. Forced unwanted marketing messages are spam. (See above.) Colin: As I’ve already noted, nothing is forced on Twitter. Emails are optional.
- Unwanted follows are a violation of privacy. You wouldn’t send Target a copy of every SMS from your mobile. Why would you want online retailers and service providers collecting information on you, even if doing so does not violate Twitter’s Terms of Service? Colin:Following on Twitter is no more a breach of privacy than a Google search or a simple TweetScan or Summize query. Again, unless you lock your Tweets, there is no expectation of privacy on Twitter.
Shey Smith (@shey) comments on my assertion that followers are akin to RSS subscribers:
Can "twitter spammers" can be equated to RSS subscribers?
When a spammer posts a comment or trackback on my blog, I can remove it even before it gets to the discussion, and I can usually identify right away that it’s spam.
The problem with Twitter spammers is that you don’t know, yet. We’ve got legitimate people out there who follow 20,000 people and fraudulent ones who do the same — the time wasted weeding out who you want to follow back and who you don’t is becoming more and more lopsided and annoying. Colin: I’ll stick with my contention that the decision to follow someone should be determined by your social interactions (ie: @ replies) rather than something as anonymous as a follow.
My RSS subscribers are a MUCH less annoying and time-consuming than Twitter spammers (plus i’m willing to bet all, if not most, of them aren’t spammers). Colin: The folks you determine as spammers aren’t annoying or time-consuming for me at all because I don’t have any reason to DO anything with them.
Mike Driehorst (@mikedriehorst) mentions the SEO implications of so-called TwitterSpammers.
Not totally harmless as it has SEO juice/links to own site. Leads browsers astray. Also, for spammers, wastes time to check out Colin: Multiple accounts full a of garbage content with links back to products, etc. would certainly fall into the realm of search engine spam… but it doesn’t in the least affect my Twitter experience – so it’s an SEO problem not a Twitter problem.
Postscript
Interstingly, not long after the exchange about TwitterSpam, I got follow notifications from two Twitterers: @HillaryClinton5 and @ChrisDodd53. What did I do? Nothing. If either of them want to be part my my social media experience they’ll have to actually engage me. Until then, they have the privilege of seeing whatever spills out of my head and into my Twitter stream.
I also received a Twitter DM from Lucia, the human being behind @pandora_radio, thanking me for sticking up for her. See? Pandora is listening. We in social media encourage our clients to listen. We should be impressed when a brand ‘follows’ us – it means they’re listening.
Share
I'm a 