"The con goes like this: The impersonator lifts an online photo of a Jew, Muslim, African-American or other minority — typically one with clear identifying markers, like a yarmulke-clad Hasid or a woman in hijab. Using that picture as a Twitter avatar, the bigot then adds ethnic and progressive descriptors to the bio: “Jewish,” “Zionist,” “Muslim,” “enemy of the alt-right.”

"False identity forged, the trolls then insert themselves into conversations with high-profile Twitter users — conversations that are often seen by tens of thousands of followers — and proceed to say horrifically racist things...

"Using a crowdsourced database of impersonator accounts, carefully curated by us to avoid any false positives, the bot patrolled Twitter and interjected whenever impostors tried to insinuate themselves into a discussion."

While I see your point about accuracy and don't necessarily buy the "carefully curated" part, I wouldn't describe the described behavior as "spam" either.

I agree. But twitter seemingly categorized it as such, maybe not spam to a singular user(s). But spam in the sense that it's volume was overwhelming? Maybe there is that many neo-nazis? I'm just not buying into the same things you are.

It wasn't simply the morally reprehensible position. It was also the act of impersonation. The bot identified impersonation.

Ok, so does impersonation allow you to be spammed? It seems like impersonation is non-consequential, or at least hard to measure. Especially on such an ephemeral platform.

If you are going to dismiss impersonation on such an ephemeral platform, why do you care about spamming?

In most platforms impersonating a living person is against the TOS. If twitter were doing their job, they would ban them.

I think it's pretty easy to see that impersonation has negative consequences. How would you feel if someone impersonated you to your employer, family, or friend, and said something disagreeable?

I do agree that "They broke the rules" might not be a good justification for further rule-breaking.

Your sympathies are very telling.

Are you seriously insinuating this user is a neo-Nazi because he's trying to have a polite conversation about what is and is not ethical? That's shameful.

Of course not. Why would you jump to that conclusion? When you see someone with a "Thin Blue Line" decal on their car, do you assume that he/she is a police officer who murders minorities? No, but you know where their allegiance rests.

As CalChris said:

>If you are going to dismiss impersonation on such an ephemeral platform, why do you care about spamming?

Maybe you didn't read enough of the replies to understand the context. I don't know.

Technically it's not impersonation. The trolls are creating fake personae, but not stealing anyone's identity.

Once you use a real person's picture w/o their consent, I think you're walking a fine line between a fake persona and impersonation.

Is abuse a position?

I'm not sure I understand your question in relation to my statement. I'm trying to imply that these people abuse and harass people because of their morally reprehensible position, and they're identified and targeted by the "bot" or other people and labelled by their position, not because they're abusers. Even if they didn't abuse or harass they would still be condemned for their position, or maybe they wouldn't be. I tend to lean on the former.

The people who the bot targeted were impersonating Jews and spreading anti Semitic. That’s not a position, that’s abuse. Is the relevance clear now?