How about 2 friends?  3? 50?  

Calling this post “Cyberbullying” leads to one of two conclusions:

1. Individuals affected by this person’s decisions should not have the right to contact an official responsible for the decisions.

or

2. Individuals affected by this person’s decisions should not have the right to share information with one another.

This person’s decisions affect millions of other individuals.  Should they not have a right to give feedback on how they have been affected?  Or do they only have that right if they do their own research to uncover the proper contact information?

Complaints aren’t a Bad thing, they can alert you to faults in your work that you may not have been aware of. If you’re confident, you can ignore them or say “thank you for the feedback, we’re still happy with how we’re doing things”, and eventually the market will decide. If too many people do other things than watch the Olympics on NBC, their profit will drop and someone will get the boot or will be Very motivated to do something else.

Don’t just get mad, vote with your feet, your wallet, your remote and your mouse!

Using a form that people just click-through is a bit annoying/grey for me, so if I want to send my views to a politician I always craft my own e-mail body, making sure to cover the main points as I see them.

As long as each e-mail represents a real person clicking a button I would argue it’s not spam. Sometimes people refer to getting a flood of e-mails as ‘being spammed’, but that’s a new meaning for the term, usually used by someone very frustrated at the topic at hand. ‘Being flooded’ with e-mails is probably more accurate. Not screwing something up (or working to ensure that your staff don’t screw something up) vastly reduces the chances that you’ll get flooded with e-mails. SPAM happens though, to everyone (even if your filter catches it and you don’t see it).

Not sure how that works in all corporations though.

If, however, you venture outside of your clique, you’ll be hit by a wall of ignorance. But aside from morbid curiosity there’s not much of an incentive to do this.

http://blog.twitter.com/2012/07/our-approach-to-trust-safety-and.html

Anyone else?

And anyone can call them assholes if they disagree with that decision. No appeals to government or other overriding authority have been made here. You make a non-point.

That’s the point here. Not how you write “spam” or “cyberbullying”.
Now, please, take your fish.

Twitter is a great tool and there is no viable alternative. All of the BB editors know this and use it and post things daily because it is the best tool for the job, and the audience is there. Yes, of course it could be better in a lot of ways, but it’s still the best.

The point of this article is to criticize Twitter – a well-loved tool by the people doing the criticizing – for heading down the wrong path. There have been signs that they have been heading down the wrong path for a long while now. But they’re not irredeemably evil yet. So making a fuss when they do something egregiously wrong is necessary because they’re still redeemable, and they do seem to respond in a positive way to criticism. 

So… what’s a private email address? I didn’t know about these, could be useful if I want an address nobody can reach.

https://join.app.net/

What Twitter Could Have Been
http://daltoncaldwell.com/what-twitter-could-have-been

and his new project to build exactly  that:

Announcing An Audacious Proposal
http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal

Looking at my feed right now I see the following topics; currents trials pertaining to freedom of speech and privacy, cake, the Olympic games, Guy Adams, Syria, wherever Nat Geog have sent their travel photographer this time, the UK government’s cuts and consequences to the poor, sick and dying, books or shows I like or might enjoy, the ongoing Uncut and Occupy movements, feminism and patriarchy, and the invariable tweets about Tom Hiddleston’s face.

That’s just my feed though.

Disrupting their work achieves nothing at all. Especially if it’s for reasons as important as slightly sub-par entertainment. Call the whambulance.

Edit: replying to your last paragraph: my experience as somebody who has been employed by some of the world’s largest megacorps suggests otherwise. Now maybe NBC is totally different, I wouldn’t know… my guess would be it ain’t that different from any other large organization though.

It doesn’t matter that it would have been a lot of emails making complaints. Those are still genuine complaints about a company’s actions directed to someone within the company who can do something about it.

The reason for the suspension was not that Adams asked people to email anyone but that he published a private email account. He did not do this.