And a viral pathogen is different from a computer virus, but that term has been adopted because it effectively used an existing term to clarify the behavior of an unfamiliar phenomenon. Like both, LinkedIn uses subterfuge to coerce a host into propagating it, often against the host's best interests.

The blogger and his intended audience likely know the dangers of biologic and technologic pathogens. I don't buy the "but I didn't know it was not a good idea to practice safe contact(s)".

There is a wider implication when people who should know better about safe practices don't apply a little common sense. Claiming "virus" in this case removes personal responsibility.

If someone savvy enough to blog about technology voluntarily exposes their contacts, how will the general public ever be expected to act in a safe manner and thus limit social engineered privacy and security breaches?