Tim Cook's email is widely available because of people other than Tim Cook posting it without asking permission, much like Mr Zenkel. I could guess all the other NBC executive emails too. Since emails usually bounce when incorrectly addressed it's very easy to get the format for any company. The more important information in the Tweet was that this was the specific executive to contact. I might have tried [email protected] because I didn't know any better.

If I was an executive and someone publicized my [email protected] email address I would not be upset in the least. I'd be more worried about the reason I was getting heckled--my job performance.

You, and searchengineland, are fixating on the word "widely." At the last company I worked at, my work email was in a single place - on the site of my company, on the contact page. According to the searchengineland examination of the word "widely" (which I'm not disagreeing with, and I think is a poor choice of words), it was not widely available.

Maybe "clearly" available is a better word? But fixating on the word "widely" is clearly a red herring, and is clearly not something that searchengineland is advancing as a reasonable criterion for a TOS violation, and is clearly being intentionally obtuse.

The parent isn't fixated on the word "widely"— you are. Your entire comment talks about how "widely" is a poor word choice and, in doing so, misses the parent's point.

Swap out the word "widely" with the word "intentionally" if it makes you feel better, but don't claim red herring when the word was obviously used in an off-handed manner.

I was commenting on the link offered as evidence, which was fixated on the word widely. Any company that uses [email protected] is intentionally making emails available.