2) The venturebeat article doesn't add anything over what appears to be the original article (http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/07/23/twitter-fakes-re...).

A few lines down there is an adblock with 8 stories, 4 of which have faces of celebrities.

They may actually be violating something there.

Unrelated, but one of my first jobs was for an online merchant that used very underhanded methods. They would do ad buys on Yahoo and then setup mod_rewrite rules that would show different ads to anyone from a Yahoo subnet. Therefore the ad rep would approve the ad buy, but actual users ended up seeing completely different content. Very, very seedy.

This was also my shortest job ever, and I was not offended when the owner threatened to sue me if I stole the "company secrets". Hah!

This strikes me as typical silicon valley gossip news—ultimately worthless except to drive people to news aggregators and the offending sites. I even went on twitter for the first time in a month!

Oh, I get it now. Putting putting words in people's virtual mouths without their permission or knowledge, then using it for advertising purposes, isn't such a good idea after all.

This would be like a Google commercial featuring "blowski, Google User" in one part. There's no real harm to you, and you are a Google user (I assume), but you've been publicized in a massive way that you never consented to. People do not appreciate being thrust into the limelight suddenly and without warning.

This isn't a huge outrage, but it does suggest some process failure on Twitter's part. You never, ever, ever, ever, ever mock up designs with real user data. This looks like what happened here - someone thoughtlessly used the username and profile pic in a mockup, which eventually made its way to PR without verification.

There are some poor processes in Twitter's design department, evidently. Hopefully they'll learn from this. Never mock up designs with real data. Twitter should have a reserve of handles/profiles they actually own for marketing uses.

- the 'Twitter Teacher' who appears in the sign up flow used to work at Twitter;

- and, the profiles used in the verification flow are also employees (http://dashes.com/anil/2013/03/what-its-like-being-verified-...).

I agree that this was unprofessional though and hope the offenders learn from the mistake.

Agreed, but 'deeply unprofessional' should not imply hysteria. Worst case scenario, someone thinks their friend likes a coffee shop that does not exist.

“This @baristabar ad is giving me the coffee shakes. Looks so good!”

“I wish I could make fancy lattes like in the @barristabar commercial,”

“What is the song in the new @baristabar commercial? I love it!”

Thinking they are legitimate is the DEFAULT expectation.

The only way for them to not claim they are legitimate tweets is to actually state, visibly, that they are NOT legitimate.

And that's without even taking into account that they used REAL account names.

>Who is getting fooled here and at what harm?

Who the fuck told Twitter that I, as a user, want my REAL ACCOUNT HANDLE, advertising stuff I don't know about?

Maybe for someone who has never viewed an ad before (which almost entirely exist in hypothetical universes, aka fictional), but it's clearly marketing speak and not someone's actual writing.

Ads that show fictional stuff are one kind. The kind that doesn't mention the names of people they show, as if they are real people. E.g: the cool guy goes in the bar, grabs a cold beer of brand X and wins the girl. A guy is driving a car in a rough terrain with epic music, etc.

On the other side, ads that show _testimonials_ or _endorsments_ on SOCIAL MEDIA, are expected to show REAL posts/tweets/etc -- or, at the very least, to have PAID the people mentioned in them to lie about their love of the product.

Try making an ad with @MagicJohnson or @Oprah shown twitting about endorsing your product without their knowledge, and see how fast the lawyers will knock on your door...

The users did NOT endorse twitter more than they already do—that is, implicitly, by using twitter. Unless their handle is trademarked I don't see an issue.

EDIT: I'd like to clarify I believe that Twitter fucked up, I just think the outrage(!?) is hysterical, proportionally to what they deserve (i.e. "Swap out the handles and avatars and move on, maybe issue an apology to the users and an explanation"). Nobody is accusing them of actually faking endorsements, most people wouldn't recognize the people portrayed and they'd be pretty lame endorsements.

No, but they are shown endorse a fake "Barista bar". Which is something they never did.

>I'd like to clarify I believe that Twitter fucked up, I just think the outrage(!?) is hysterical

A few online angry posts and news articles is "hysterical"? I reserve that word for people _actually_ foaming at the mouth, hacking attempts, death threats, etc.

>* Nobody is accusing them of actually faking endorsements, most people wouldn't recognize the people portrayed and they'd be pretty lame endorsements.*

An endorsement is an endorsement whether you recognize the person or not. And they did fake endorsements. It would take a perceptive viewer (of the kind that is lacking) to note that the ad is fake -- and even then, he could assume those are legit tweets.

Oh, and it doesn't have to be "most people". It's enough that their friends or followers recognize them. You except twitter to NOT use your name with words you never said.

My default expectation for user-generated content in a commercial or advertisement is that it is made-up.

Not if you're looking at a mockup in an ad. Quite the opposite, actually.

I'm mostly pissed off because the laws against using likeness/pictures/etc. to promote products without model sign off get in my way myself all the time, so seeing Twitter break the laws I have to follow is very annoying.

It probably even would have been easier than selecting the real names that they wanted to use.

Did that come across with the implied sarcastic tone I'm trying to convey? Because I have a solution to your problems - don't use twitter. It's really not as outlandish as you think.

No matter if the service is otherwise needed (e.g you are a company and you need a twitter account as part of your reach strategy) or what they did was actually against the law and your rights.

Heck, why didn't that Rosa Parks girl just quit using the bus services, instead of causing such a stir?

(And, no, it didn't come out as sarcastic. Mostly as inane and bend-over-ish).

I'll bet you say a lot of trivial things are as bad as Hitler too.

Also, stopping the use of a service is pretty much the exact opposite of just "taking it".

I appreciate your input.

"Having to sit on the back of the bus" was considered a "simple annoyance" back then too. In fact they scolded her because she was making fuss about such a matter.

But the idea of bending over is the same -- I just magnified it so you can see it clearly. At least you now agree it's an "annoyance". Before you had it as a "non issue".

And no, a company using your account without your consent in ads is not a "simple annoyance" either.

Besides not having your consent, and you not getting paid, there are business, personal and other issues to consider. E.g account X appears in the "ad" endorsing some "Barista Bar". What if X has a competing shop of his own? Or is against coffee and stimulants and writes books on health diets? What if X is an employeer in a coffee shop, and his boss sees the fake twit as him endorsing the competitor?