[trevorstarick]

A question of ethics. I could have written it to be as flexible with its replies as possible but I didn't want it to look like spam. Even now the odd tweet gets passed but it occasionally makes for a laugh as the replies I'm giving make no sense based on the question.

[pidg]

If this is the tweet you blanked out in the article: https://twitter.com/DeasesRuthann/status/464740467213496320

I'm interested in how that works. Is it a realistic-looking spam account you can hire? (Not judging - genuinely interested.)

[floody-berry]

Whatever it is, it's replying to tweets that have nothing to do with their spammy service:

https://twitter.com/DeasesRuthann/status/464387770178215936

https://twitter.com/DeasesRuthann/status/464082317913243648

https://twitter.com/DeasesRuthann/status/463863787963949056

She or he is supposedly in the UK and they "know a few places in Monroe"?

Some of their "tweets":

"About ready to knock doc the fuck out if if he keeps fuckin with these grades""

"Boost Male fertility http://bit.ly/aA4gur"

"I can never use anyone either I got it or ima wait on it frfr and that's that I really don't need nobody for shit"

"Miley Cyrus USED to be fucking stunning"

"Them was some good ass fights people who was there got the best view we just tried to include the outsiders and yall being ungrateful he'll"

Congrats on being a worthless spammer.

[trevorstarick]

We have a few realistic accounts which we maintain. During office hours we manually reply to the tweets but we can't, unfortunately, be up 24/7.

[dirktheman]

To me, this is a big no-no. If you're answering someone who posted a question and it's clear that you're the business behind the product/answer that's okay with me. But if you're using a personal profile (real? fake?) to push traffic to your website, you're actively misleading people.