I don't like being manipulated. Every time I see a "You should follow me on Twitter" kinda thing I make it a point to not follow the author, or maybe even unfollow them.

Holding your readership in higher regards than a meaningless metric can be worth a lot in the long run, too.

Manipulated ? He just said in other words - "Hey follow me on twitter if you want to stay updated". Is that manipulation according to you ?

I actually looked for the twitter button on his site so that I could follow him - since I did enjoy the post and would like to see more from him. Didn't feel manipulated though.

I think the idea is that, if I like what he has to say, I'll just do it. He doesn't have to ask, and doing so _inside_ the post shifts the whole thing from inspirational anecdote, to well-written justification of why you should follow his Twitter.

I agree. It devalues the article because it becomes part of an agenda instead of standing on its own.

Fair enough.

The way he embedded the suggestion seemed contrived and inorganic to me. If some one puts a link to their Twitter account beneath a post, I know what to do if I want to follow them because of their output.

If I have confidence in my output I will trust my audience to find the right degree of involvement they want to have with me. No need to push it. Maybe I'm weird that way, but I think the OP knew exactly what he was doing, and stuff like that rubs me the wrong way because I find it undignified, harshly put.