>It is straight out ignorant to say follow doesn't imply you'll be interacting in the future with that person/company.
Follow as a natural word is one-way relationship - you follow someone else, they don't have to take any action. It's thus not interaction. Nor is it a word that requires a continued future action; "following" would do that. I'm not sure there's a good word for the type of relationship you're [wrongly IMO] saying "follow" implies, perhaps "liaise" or "apprentice" is close?
On the contrary, follow specifically does refer to a continuing future action.
"Follow that cab!" doesn't mean just for one block. You expect the driver will follow that cab until you tell him to stop following it.
To agree with you, however, the cab being followed need not be aware of your continued future action. They can speed up, slow down, stop, U-turn, do whatever they would do if you weren't following them. To your point, "follow" is not "interactive". It's active for you, passive for the one being followed.
It's therefore the perfect word for Twitter's button.
Follow as a natural word is one-way relationship - you follow someone else, they don't have to take any action. It's thus not interaction. Nor is it a word that requires a continued future action; "following" would do that. I'm not sure there's a good word for the type of relationship you're [wrongly IMO] saying "follow" implies, perhaps "liaise" or "apprentice" is close?