> In theory a spammer could make non-commercial, non-misleading, non-fraudulent speech, and a site like twitter would then actually have to think about questions like first-amendment. I can't say I have ever received or seen spam like that.
While I don't think I have seen it on Twitter (then again I only read it when it's linked) I have seen plenty of it in some older forums & IRC. Generally it's just nonsense like "jqrfefafasok" or ":DDDDDD" being posted lots of times in quick succession, often to either flood out other things, to draw attention to poster or to show annoyance about something (like being banned previously).
You got a point. Demonstration as a form of free speech is an interesting dilemma. Review spam/bombing for example can be non-commercial, non-misleading, non-fraudulent, while still being a bit of a grey-zone. Removing them is also fairly controversial. Outside the web we have a similar problem when demonstrations and strikes are causing disruption in society. Obviously demonstration and strikes should be legal and are protected by free speech, but at the same time there are exceptions when they are not.
I am unsure if one would construct a objective fair model for how to moderate such activity.
While I don't think I have seen it on Twitter (then again I only read it when it's linked) I have seen plenty of it in some older forums & IRC. Generally it's just nonsense like "jqrfefafasok" or ":DDDDDD" being posted lots of times in quick succession, often to either flood out other things, to draw attention to poster or to show annoyance about something (like being banned previously).