Nate, you bring up some great points on marketing ethics, which would be convincing if your entire article didn’t sound like an apology. Rather just say what you mean than bubble-wrap your argument in apology.

Marco wrote essentially the same thing yesterday in response to a different topic.

My response to him applies here as well:

Diverting your attention to something else is fine. I do that myself countless times that I never tell anyone about because it’s sufficient for my purposes. There is a second level, however, that demands more overt action. To keep with Marco’s metaphor of “voting” with your attention, I’m terming this level “campaigning.” Millions of people choose every four years to sway other people’s minds by actively encouraging them. If all those people simply fell silent and voted on election day, would they have the same effect? The answer must be no.

Voting with your attention is great. Campaigning is a necessary next step when companies like 37signals or MacHeist choose to violate web etiquette. You may not feel like their violations are egregious enough to warrant my reaction. That’s perfectly understandable. When you tell me to just ignore it if I don’t like it, well, I think you’re missing the point.

Following anyone is a tacit approval to receive “spam” (a.k.a. Tweets) by them and anyone else they happen to retweet. The remedy, if you don’t like it, is the same as with this particular problem: you unfollow them. Again, big deal.

We felt, however, there was a greater issue that needed to be addressed. When a company as successful and influential as 37signals encourages people to spam their followers with unsolicited advertisements, we worry it legitimizes the practice in many people’s eyes.

It’s true anyone with a Twitter account can unfollow someone they perceive as abusing the relationship, but what happens when that behavior is seen as normal? We’re all a bit worse off for having to endure random and uninvited commercials while following people whose tweets we otherwise enjoy.