-
Website
http://dannybrown.me/ -
Original page
http://dannybrown.me/2009/04/13/does-twitter-monitor-its-brand-fake-twittercom-suggests-no/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I tried to use it for fun, however, and it didn't appear to work. Perhaps it will suffer the same FAIL problems that Twitter has and die on it's own from popularity.
At what point are we going to stop being so dependant on the creators of online tools for our success in this medium? Whether it's Twitter buckling under it's own weight, or Facebook continuing to be marred by poor design and bad privacy, perhaps it's time for us to start to focus more on relationships - not only between each other but between all of the information we have made available online.
We have to have a certain level of trust in our Social Media provider to maintain a certain level of integrity of our individual accounts. To me this is a really big deal!
Lisa
@lisajohnson
It's easy for RSS aggregators to trawl feeds and republish snippets of information on websites. They don't always refer back to the originating site, either.
So now you or your client has to start digging into what has been said and maybe even start a damage limitation exercise.
While some (like Michael below) may see Fake-Twitter as just a prank site, to businesses and brands it's potentially a PR nightmare waiting to happen.
Nobody's going to be seriously injured by this site, and it might even be legally-defensible parody. Once you get over the surprise of reading a prank tweet, it's terribly easy to see it's a prank, and/or prove to your friends it's a prank, because the domain name is fake-twiiter.
That's not guaranteed. Depending where a story or link ends up, it's not always clear where the originating site was. Additionally, no matter where or what the domain is, the "lack of understanding" about social media by a lot of people and businesses could cloud awareness of authenticity.
As an example, you post on your website that you may not be the Bauser that people are looking for. This may be from an inaccurate web search or just a mistake.
Now, say something is posted on the Fake Twitter site. That goes into the search engines and is then open to language or translation iterations worldwide. Perhaps particular translations don't come out better than others and it looks like it's a genuine statement by the person or company involved.
Should that company then have to pay thousands of dollars just to clear their name and any misinformation that arose from the fake site? Look at the incorrect information that came out from a citizen journalist story about the health of Steve Jobs. Apple's share prices tumbled and cost the company millions of dollars.
There are ways to have fun, I agree, but I'm not sure that a site that has the potential to cost people and businesses reputations as well as dollars is the way to have it.
I'm with Danny here. The site's tasteless and stinks of legal issues waiting to take it down.
natasha for the win.
there are more important issues to deal with.
If I know anything about your "brand" now, I know that it's about being butthurt.
I'd seriously consider calming down and stop acting so butthurt about something that doesn't effect you. The site says "fake-twitter" and if you can't figure out for yourself that the site is indeed not the real thing, then perhaps you shouldn't be on the internet if it makes you that angry.
P.S. I'd say @topherchris could pull some legal stunts on you for posting his personal information across the web, that is if anyone reads this site. Way to be a jackass.
They are not going to give you a job for being a douche. Your time, and mine, could have been spent better.
PS - am I right in assuming that an accurate definition of "boutique style PR firm" would be "zero employees makes for less overhead?"
And lovely photo of yourself. Look like a myspace profile photo. Did you take it with your cell while in the WC?
Get over yourself and your "tweetdom." Laugh a little - it just might loosen your cheeks enough for you to remove your head from your arse.
If Twitter is not concerned with the site, why are you? To the point of revealing someone's personal information all across the internet, even. Apparently you're above the issue of personal privacy.
Dick.
With regards one point you make, anyone can find the WhoIs information regarding Fake-Twitter.com on the GoDaddy website. If Ryan Cornwell didn't want this public, he could have used the private option instead.
Cheers for the fun links, pretty creative :)
I read the article. You posted someone's personal information as part of your story?? Really?? That crosses threshold from just another whiny post into something more personal.
Like I said, we'll, probably just chalk this up as a beginner's mistake. One day you'll realize that your writing something on the internet can cause harm to others. Wait--- isn't that why you were upset about fake twitter? Huh.
If they want to be douches, sure.
Otherwise, that's what is called 'parody' and, at least in the US, is protected.
Looking at this post, all Danny Brown did was call out a website that could have long-term implications on people, businesses and brands. Perhaps the owners of the website would have preferred to wait until a libel suit came in from someone instead, for wrongful use of name and IP? As an IP lawyer, I can assure you that this website broke many laws both online and physical.
With regards people citing that Brown was in the wrong for sharing publicly available information - read the key terms here: "publicly available". There is no law against sharing information that is widely available.
Twitter were well within their judiciary rights, both as a brand and a company, to take down this site for improper use.
While people may see it as fun or parody, rest assured that the courts do not take it this way, as the website owners would have found out had their site been left to run and mitigation came about as a result of false information being published.
And you ought to also know that "judiciary rights" are rights conferred upon judges, courts, arbiters (i.e. the "judiciary branch"); not the rights of private citizens (which would be "legal rights"). I'm referring here, of course, to Black's Law Dictionary, which I'm currently holding in front of me (I'm in the legal profession, too).
10 bucks says Sheila is neither an IP Lawyer nor Sheila at all, but is actually Danny Brown's pseudonym for when he wants to justify the bunches in his panties.
Take off the hat and the eyebrow ring. Its not 1994.
From glen to glen, and down the mountain side
The summer's gone, and all the flowers are dying
'Tis you, 'tis you must go and I must bide.
But come ye back when summer's in the meadow
Or when the valley's hushed and white with snow
'Tis I'll be here in sunshine or in shadow
Oh Danny boy, oh Danny boy, I love you so.
And if you come, when all the flowers are dying
And I am dead, as dead I well may be
You'll come and find the place where I am lying
And kneel and say an "Ave" there for me.
And I shall hear, tho' soft you tread above me
And all my dreams will warm and sweeter be
If you'll not fail to tell me that you love me
I'll simply sleep in peace until you come to me.
I'll simply sleep in peace until you come to me.
Yours Truly,
Your Sense of Humor
This whole "Social Media" thing that you PR and Advertising types are all about right now is such total bullshit. "The industry" will be over it in a year and on to the next "hot" thing. It's just another way for you to fleece your clients out of money. That you take something that's easy, fun and free and try to make a buck off of it by trying to explain to prospective clients that it's something that it's not while using industry "buzzwords" to obfuscate the fact that any 8th grader could (and, in reality, *is*) doing your job as well as if not better than you, is just another example of the disease that is the interactive maketing space.
Want to do the world a favor? DO something. MAKE something. CREATE. Don't just regurgitate crap that you heard at some conference.
Oh, and 1999 called... they want their hat and eyebrow ring back.
The money raised by my 12for12k Challenge that so far has helped kids in war-torn countries escape the chaos, or brought to light child sexual abuse and helped children escape from the abusers, or fed more than 500,000 hungry kids in the US last month - would that count as doing, making and creating?
Still, I stand by my statements regarding Social Media and Interactive/Digital marketing, and you've gotta ditch that pic!
:)
Contrary to one (or maybe more) of the comments here, I'd never claim to be a "social media expert" or "social media guru" - how can you be when there are new tools and networks popping up all the time?
I do have over 15 years of experience in marketing and PR, which I'll combine with social media, to offer clients a combined approach. But claiming to be an expert - no thanks. :)
Thanks for coming back to share your view on the charity and appreciate your kind words.
and you have no sense of humour...
rough day?
well at least you'll still get some
BTW, I had never heard of him before this, so it was apparently a pretty successful social media strategy, if one wants to look at it from that perspective.
Keep up the good work, sir!
Will you petition twitter to "monitor its brand" there too?
It's a tough time for anyone trying to make a living, and I'm sure it's gotten tougher for PR and marketing as those tend to be the first line items cut. As someone with no dog in this fight, I just sure wish that we could avoid the embarrassing tactics in the name of scrambling to pick up business. It's the half-truths and ulterior motives that are particularly galling and obvious. (I'm looking at you, Sheila.)
I'm not sure where the "scrambling to pick up business" reference is aimed at, but thank you for stopping by and sharing your views. Appreciate your thoughts and neutrality.