I won't add to the AI debate already well expressed by other commenters but one thing i don't understand is why the author has posted the name of the "spammed" product and a direct link to their blog: consider how much did he helped them having new traffic and potential customers
With limited exceptions*, [sometimes even egregious] factuality trumps self-censorship.
I myself tend to name-and-shame regardless of how it may turn out, whether "positive" or "negative," when I feel compelled to be posting online about a thing I have encountered in my personal life. I think that openness and clearly-evident facts are very important parts of supporting the story that I wish to tell. (And if I did not wish to tell the story, then I would not have done so.)
* But a line must be drawn somewhere.
My own line is this: When I encounter a fucking nazi in real life, I make sure to not propagate whatever it is that this fucking nazi has to say, even if I have a story to write about that fucking nazi. (And we rather unfortunately have plenty of these fucking nazis here in Ohio, so I do get opportunities every now and then to exercise this self-restraint.)
Name and shame is a worthwhile practice. Driving potential business to The AI powered CMS known as Wisp, is not a good reason to avoid contributing to the common consensus about the company.
And the common consensus in this thread, which I agree with, is that Wisp is obnoxious, insidious, and is an active participant in the degradation of quality of both email, and the internet as a whole.
