Today I got to thinking a little about the whole tweetattacks lawsuit, and what the true nature of spam is. Can't it be argued that spam is simply advertisements? What really separates email/forum/twitter spam from any other type of advertisement? Did I opt-in to have my skylines assaulted with commercial billboards? Did I opt-in to have my tv shows interrupted by commercials? Did I choose to view magazine ads? Yet that's all perfectly legal and are accepted as part of those experiences. Indeed, advertisements seem to have been embraced by the western world, as we routinely buy clothing with the companys logo on it. This is why the whole idea of a spam-free inbox being a civil right seems totally absurd to me. It just seems like a measure to control the channels of advertisement, giving it to private companies. Google is obviously a big one, as are the hollywood conglomerates who control the media. The only thing that I can understand as an abnormal violation of people's rights is the monetary effect that spam can have on website owners as you use up their bandwidth for your own purposes. But seeing as how most hosting packages bandwidth is measured in gigabytes, this isn't going to take down a site. Spamming a few comments does not equal a ddos attack. The most significant effect is time wasted, same as any other advertisement, unless your spamming them with links to 'bad neighborhoods' So, my opinion is that companies can create their own TOS and prohibit advertisements on their site, but making it illegal is totally absurd. We can all move to Romania if it does happen though Thoughts?