I see it all the time -- some guru (or wannabe) releases what could have been a good internet marketing info product. But since they're more interested in sales than ethics, they just can't resist adding a little "hash" to their brownie mix.

What am I talking about?

Here's an example: I created a website a few months ago that tracks how many people each of your Twitter followers is following. If they're following more than you think a person can really follow, they're counted as a "fauxlower".

On that site, I'd like to promote some Twitter training products. But I haven't yet found a decent-looking one that doesn't recommend "fauxlowing" -- adding someone as a follower to get them to follow you even though you don't intend to read anything they write.

Every time I look into an eBook to promote, I find that author wrote a bunch of great advice for Twitter users, but to ensure that their customers get that high that'll bring 'em back for more, they put some dope in the brownie mix.

Think it doesn't do any harm? Uh, have you ever used Twitter? Have you ever seen the "Fail Whale"? It's that whale that gets displayed whenever Twitter is stretched beyond it's capacity. Without all the fauxlowing, we wouldn't see as many fail whales, and Twitter wouldn't have to spend as much money trying to keep the whale at bay.

The problem is twofold. First, there are the "externalities" that force someone else to pay so that the person using the technique can profit. Then there's the harm caused when the technique backfires -- when the students who didn't even recognize the harm they were causing get penalized for it.

I can understand the temptation. You've got a good product, but it's not selling as well as you think it deserves to. So you rationalize that maybe it's okay to cross the line just a little and teach or use some shady techniques so that more people can benefit from all the good stuff.

Reader Comment:
Antone Roundy said:
Antwan, I appreciate the comment, and have no qualms with anyone who sincerely feels that way. But I disagree. I don't believe that it's worth the horrendous amount of time it would take to comb through the tweets of 3000 people in the hope of ...
(join the conversation below)

It's always disappointing to discover that someone I respected has fallen to that rationalization. But it's also encouraging to see that there are still people who haven't, and from the way they talk, I don't expect they will.