You're missing the point.
It's not about whether or not the facts he's spamming people with are right or wrong, it's the fact that he's doing it in the first place.
It's not about whether or not the facts he's spamming people with are right or wrong, it's the fact that he's doing it in the first place.
I wouldn't characterise it as spamming. He's sending the messages on one of his own twitter accounts. If he was auto-replying on other people's blogs, he might more accurately be accused of spamming.
It's not one of his accounts, it's a spam bot. A tongue in cheek, funny pictures, really obvious to computer scientist 'hey I'm a bot' account, but it's still a twitter spam bot.
And the bot is auto replying to random people's tweets. It clearly says so in the article.
It is a twitter account. He has the password to it, and presumerably no one else does.
That makes it his twitter account.
These are tweets on his own account.
It does raise the question of whether the means justify the end. As people in this thread have noted ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867043, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867162), that this technique may be more effective than a more neutral route. But again, I'm not condoning anything.
Then again, if half of your conversation can be replaced by [fill in the blank] your questions may be imprecise.