[downandout]

First, I don't think anyone that read my comment would objectively say that I was endorsing such behavior, as you seem to imply in your comment (for the record, I wasn't). Second...you're honestly saying that CreditKarma, Buzzfeed, and Vice didn't grow through spamming? CreditKarma (and everyone else in the free credit space) contracts with affiliate networks to drive new customers, whose affiliates do every shady thing imaginable (and then some) to get commissions. "Free credit" offers thrive in these networks - they occupy the top spots in the best performing offers lists because they pay $20+ to affiliates for each "free" signup - and they are primarily promoted through fake job offers on Craigslist and other job boards. Affiliates tell people they're hired for XYZ job - they just need to complete a credit check by going to <insert affiliate link here>. CreditKarma probably isn't directly doing this, but they know full well that their affiliates are.

Buzzfeed spams the crap out of Facebook. Eventbrite & Vice had some spamming issues in the beginning as well. I'm not sure about Snapchat's growth story - they may have been a rare example of natural growth, along with Google. Most of the rest of those you're talking about aren't really the kinds of pure internet plays that are relevant to this discussion. No amount of spamming would have made Xiaomi, Palantir, SpaceX, DJI, etc any more successful, so they didn't employ these techniques.

[millamox]

You made an "edgy" but incorrect generalization based on sparse anecdata. It was good for your comment karma, but it's silly to stand by it.

AirBNB's CAN-SPAM violating email was clearly unethical. A media company showing up on Facebook more than you would prefer is, at worst, mildly annoying. There's an important difference.

Ethical people do not need to leave Silicon Valley. Dishonesty is not prerequisite to success. Your claims are wrong.

[downandout]

>Ethical people do not need to leave Silicon Valley. Dishonesty is not prerequisite to success. Your claims are wrong.

Again, you're implying things that I simply didn't say.

>A media company showing up on Facebook more than you would prefer is, at worst, mildly annoying

You're right, that's not spam, but that's not what I was referring to either. I'm not going to write a massive explanation here of the specific Facebook spamming techniques employed by Buzzfeed et al, but suffice it to say that they are actively and aggressively spamming to "prime the viral pump" with certain stories.

[Kinnard]

It was clear to me that you weren't making an endorsement.