Richie Hecker writes in "5 Reasons Growth Hacking is THE Most Important Function of a Startup":

Users might show up once or now and again, but people need to be reminded that you exist until they actually get hooked. Different behaviors on the site or within the product should trigger different ‘nudges’ that might show up as an email in their inbox, something on social media in their feed, or through retargeted ads. Following on with the Hulu example, they worked so hard to convert individuals who had an appetite for the service already, they were an obvious (but often neglected in many organizations) segment to reengage! They developed lifecycle marketing  to drive retention, which was facilitated through email and other triggers within the service to get back those who churned. However, without having analytics, triggers, and viral loops built into the product, you might be leaving money on the table just because consumers are generally overwhelmed with distractions and need to be reminded to return. Again, the growth hacker owns this component of product, user experience, and marketing. It’s the whole conversion flow.

This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with Growth Hacking.

There are only 2-3 billion Internet users x 24 hours of attention per day on the whole planet.

Which means that every "growth hacker" is vying for time from the same finite pool of attention.

"People need to be reminded that you exist until they actually get hooked" is offensive.

If every product operates this way, every product loses in a zero-sum-game kind of way.

You know what's more important than growth hacking? Treating your users with respect.

"You know what's more important than growth hacking? Treating your users with respect." - well said and worth repeating

Thank you, Henry!