
Conservatives changed twitter name to 'FactCheckUK' during the TV debate - jonplackett
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50482637
======
parliament32
I wonder if Twitter will react: Changing your display name to misrepresent who
you are, while keeping your "blue checkmark" smells pretty abusive.

~~~
jonplackett
I think anyone else doing this would lose their checkmark. Shouldn't be any
different for politicians. But will they be brave enough?

~~~
dragonwriter
Twitter has explicitly stated that they will allow politicians to violate the
rules applicable to others, so this shouldn't be a surprise.

~~~
jonplackett
Does this apply to any political institution too? This was the Conservative's
main account rather than an individual politician.

------
sneakernets
Twitter could fix this in no time by adding an alert next to a recently
changed name (within a few days) and/or a list of previous names. Steam
figured this stuff out years ago.

~~~
jonplackett
Would be better to change the design to make the real username more prominent.
That can't be changed.

------
wnevets
I feel like if you need to do these kinds of tricks to win maybe you shouldn't
win.

~~~
pjc50
It's more of a way of showing off that they are above the rules. It won't be
used to hammer them in the press, and Twitter is unlikely to ban them for it.

~~~
jonplackett
It's more of the same from them. Last week they doctored a video of the shadow
Brexit Minister to make it look like he didn't have an answer for a question
on Brexit. In reality he answered the question immediately, and very
articulately i might add.

This is part of a long-running campaign of underhanded tactics. There are
probably many other things going on that no-one has noticed yet.

------
barsonme
I think we can all agree that blue check marks shouldn't be misrepresenting
who they are.

That said, the 'outrage' to this is pure political games. Don't be a sucker.

~~~
thehenster
So you think it's wrong.. but a reaction to something wrong is purely
political gaming? Illogical.

~~~
barsonme
Intent matters. I don't think they were intending to mislead people.

I've worked enough in politics and the marketing side of things to know that
the conversation about this gimmick went something like:

"We can 'fact check' during the debates as a way to increase engagement on
Twitter, etc."

not like

"We can change our Twitter handle to trick people into thinking our falsehoods
are facts."

And if you believe their goal was nefarious, then congrats: you're playing the
gross political game.

~~~
thehenster
An official party social media account changing it's branding to masquarade as
a fact checking service during a televised debate? The intent to mislead is
clear.

