|
|
|
|
|
|
by doug_m
6109 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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}