I'm a bit surprised by some of the reactions here, starting with Jason's quoted in the article update ("Wasn’t worth the techrunch headache"). It seems that th

I'm a bit surprised by some of the reactions here, starting with Jason's quoted in the article update ("Wasn’t worth the techrunch headache"). It seems that there are a lot of people who either a) don't take Securities laws seriously, b) don't see the point of Securities laws, or c) think that Twitter is somehow different than other forms of publication. To take these points in order: First, selling shares in a company, even a privately held one, has legal implications, and shouldn't be done without consultation with a lawyer. (I'm a bit concerned that's not obvious to Jason.) If you're going to play the game, take the time to learn the rules. Second: I really don't see how the Securities Act can be viewed to be creating unreasonable barriers to entry for startups, or stifle innovation. The regulations are fairly straightforward, and the intent is clear. Again, anyone seriously doubting this ought to talk to their attorney about the matter. And yes, you'll need an attorney if you are serious about a start-up. Finally, for the purposes of the law, why should posting a message to the world on Twitter be considered any different than taking out an ad in a newspaper? I don't see how Jason's message could be viewed as "innocuous"-- this isn't casual, private conversation. It's publication, and Twitter users should remember that.