He gets to ask, and you get to decide how much of a jerk you think you are for disrespecting his desires.
They aren't manipulating anyone... they're just making it known they'd prefer not to be linked to from another platform.
Is this a reasonable expectation? I'm not sure -- my gut says probably not. Is it a reasonable request? IMO yes.
Contrived scenario for expository purposes: lets say I'm an expert in pre-civil war era southern cuisine. If I find out that people on stormfront are linking to and discussing my posts for their own agenda, do I have a right to make them stop? Of course not. Is it reasonable for me to say "I'd prefer if your platform didn't link to my blog"? Of course it is.
It is a reasonable request to ask your neighbor to take down their billboard that says "THE GUY NEXT DOOR WROTE ${THIS} BLOG POST AND IS A REAL PIECE OF SHIT", even though they aren't obligated to do so. It becomes unreasonable when you expect that they take it down.
Obviously depends on the jurisdiction.
Everything depends on jurisdiction, that's the very nature of law in and of itself.
Personally I just follow foone on twitter, since their an interesting person.
But what if he was a "bad" (in quotes) guy? Like the CEO from the recent repl.it debacle. What if he asks to stop linking to his bullying tweets? Nobody would side with him.
So.. where's the line? Is anything public fair play? Who decides if someone is bad or good? The collective internet mob? Surely nothing can go wrong with that.
JWZ's site sends you to a hairy testicle if an article on his website is linked from this site.
Foone is more than competent enough to publish to the web with whatever access control they find agreeable. jwz is, as well, and doesn't like being linked from HN either, for example.
Posting on Twitter publicly is consent to be linked to, regardless of what other words are said.
If you invite people to a party, are you the jerk for telling the person you know to be vegan that by going to the party they consent to having to eat meat? Clearly, the vegan person could simply not go to the party and not consent to it, but it still kinda makes you a jerk for even making this a problem, you could have either made a vegan meal or not invite them (and inform them why if they're a close friend maybe).
I think not inviting someone to a meat party because they're vegan is way more of a jerk move than saying "hey, I'm having a meat party, I know you're vegan but you can still come if you want" and them not coming. Give people the option to make their own choices.
Foone chose to publish things unauthenticated to the web on Twitter. That's affirmative consent to anyone on the web reading the URL by visiting it.
No it's not. It means it's out there but the wishes of a person may still go contrary. That is perfectly fine and like in the above example, maybe you should give people options instead of taking them away.