[doug_m]

I'm not sure that "perfectly entitled to perform" statement holds up. "Legally" entitled to perform, yes... "Morally" entitled to perform, hmmm.

It does seem Twitter was willing to deprive a benefit (read exposure/revenue) granted to TC on the basis the documents were leaked. In the future if TC had interesting/harmful information on Twitter to reveal they would decide commercially whether to publish by taking into account any negative impact for them in exposure on twitter.

That's unhealthy isn't it? Twitter would be less likely to receive negative/unhelpful press than other similar companies on the basis they can punish those who do it.

I know I'm deliberately talking up what happened here but it is an interesting question, to me at least

[unalone]

Dude, we're talking morality over a list of recommended people on Twitter. That's Twitter's way of saying "We like these people!" Saying that their removing TechCrunch is immoral is like saying that it's immoral to stop dating a girl who cheated on me.

Twitter would be justified in what they did, even if their "recommended" list was important enough to be worth an argument, and it's not.

[doug_m]

I don't see the comparison with respect to dating, this is sanctions against a media company on the basis they gave unfavorable coverage.

As far as the scale goes, this is what it is - its cost TC 600,000 followers on Twitter - if there is a numeric value to that of even a dollar I still personally find the situation interesting because I find the principal of this kind of sanction to be a moral point of debate.

Moral is a strong word though I admit!! I just can't think of another way to express it.

[pyre]

> I don't see the comparison with respect to dating, this is sanctions against a media company on the basis they gave unfavorable coverage.

If removal from the list is 'sanctions' then what would you call not being included in the list at all? Should Twitter be forced to add all news sites to that list (and never remove them)? If so, what constitutes a 'news site?' Should all blogs be included in that list too?

Just because being on the Suggested Users List garners you a steady stream of new followers doesn't necessarily mean that once you are on that list Twitter is obligated to keep you there because you are now 'entitled' to keep that steady stream of new followers from now until the end of time. I will admit that there is a fine line when dealing with these issues, but removal from the Suggested Users List isn't that harsh... it would be different if Twitter banned their account or 'accidentally' screwed up their account beyond repair (forcing them to create a new account with a new name, possibly permanently losing a number of followers in the confusion). Or excluded TechCrunch's twits from search results or something similar.

{edit} Bringing this possible conflict of interests to light is a good thing but jumping up and down like the sky is falling and Twitter is the 'Evil Empire(tm)' is over the top and completely unnecessary {/edit}