
Tower Bridge bot killed by Twitter, replaced with marketing - tomstuart
http://infovore.org/archives/2011/06/12/wheres-towerbridge/
======
kmfrk
So much wrong with this (feel free to add more numbered points):

1\. The account was already popular (i.e., it served a purpose): 4000+
followers.

2\. The account was already active with plenty of tweets.

3\. No warning. No notice.

4\. No back-up of the tweets.

5\. The new account is clearly some useless social media expert bullshit.

6\. In their defence, the new user claims not to have been informed of how
this was going to be handled.

I perfectly understand the general concept of fighting user name squatters,
but this just makes no sense to me from any point of view.

Is there any nasty legislation that can penalize Twitter for having accounts
misrepresenting the official namesake?

~~~
mryall
Trademark is the normal legal foundation for protecting a name. But trademarks
are limited by industry and geography, so attempting to enforce them on a
single global namespace like Twitter or DNS is always going to end up with
conflicts.

However, this is probably the best way to protect a name you use on Twitter:
register a trademark and let them know that you're using your registered name
as a Twitter handle and want it maintained for your business/organisation.

------
msy
Given how often this happens with Twitter, Facebook and ever other Corp-owned
namespace the more I appreciate the clear ownership status afforded by DNS,
despite it's many flaws.

It's also why I put my domain on my business card but not my Twitter, all it'd
take is an account hack and some spam or a backhander from some firm and it
would't be mind anymore with no recourse whatsoever.

~~~
iamdave
Linking to your twitter profile as a "url" is something I've never understood.
I'll see really awesome web sites, want to see what else the person has done
and I have to go through the extra clicks of first going to a twitter profile,
then to the site.

Granted, it's one extra click, but I'm not particularly interested in your
timeline of tweets. I want to see your work.

~~~
corin_
Twitter on business cards is mostly as a form of connection (same as an email
address). For many people it's a dumb idea, but in some circles (a good
example being tech marketing) it can be useful. If someone who actively uses
twitter follows you, and you're an active user too, it's a constant reminder
that they know you, and they won't forget who you are.

~~~
iamdave
In the example you gave (and it was a very good one, it makes sense), wouldn't
it be more prudent to link to a github profile or something otherwise reduces
the layers necessary to obtain access to what makes you relevant to the
viewer's interests?

~~~
tim_iles
A tech marketer with a github profile?

------
anotherjesse
Sadly this is common for twitter to do without contracting the party.

For over a year I ran a bot called @amazon which when messaged would look up
the price of a book using the amazon api and respond to the user.

When amazon decided to join twitter, they contacted twitter who simply deleted
my account and gave it to them without contacting me. After contacting amazon
as I would have gladly given them the bot, they informed me they didn't ask
for it to be deleted but to contact me.

At the time twitter made some excuse about how it is against their TOS to give
my email to another party (yet acceptable to delete with even contacting
me)...

Seems like things haven't changed at le twit

~~~
afterburner
Twitter... in it for the dollarz.

This is pretty brazen. They can be bullies if they want with their own space,
but the lack of communication is amazingly rude. However, I remember
experiencing exactly the same thing when my undergrad email was changed,
without any notification whatsoever, because some TA had joined who had the
same last name. The admin was completely unapologetic when I shared my
irritation. So maybe it's to be expected in the culture.

Twitter... just like a lame undergrad sysadmin.

------
corin_
Reading this new account's 15 tweets, it's clear that it is being run by
someone who fancies themselves as a bit of a social media expert, but who is
rather awful at it.

Ironicly, I can't see them ever getting nearly as many followers as the bot
ever had.

------
protomyth
The followup [http://infovore.org/archives/2011/06/12/towerbridge-a-bit-
mo...](http://infovore.org/archives/2011/06/12/towerbridge-a-bit-more-
clarity/)

~~~
kmfrk
Guess #3 is off my list.

Obviously, the whole "intentional misleading" does not apply here. In general,
I think it would benefit Twitter or at least the trademark holders, if Twitter
introduced the opposite of a "Verified" badge: a "Unofficial" badge - which
the user in this case can activate without needing approval from Twitter, if
Twitter does not beat them to it.

Of course, the adverse effect is that it would also serve to point out how
ruthlessly Twitter enforce their ToS, once one of the accounts are seized.

------
thehodge
I commented on the post but will post it here as well;

I had a similar thing with @apress a few years ago, I set up an automated
twitter feed to post the daily book deal to a twitter account, a couple of
months afterwards I checked and realized @apress was just given to Apress
without any email or notice (everything I posted too was lost)

Fair play to apress I contacted them and they got back to me within half an
hour, they had no idea twitter hadn’t contacted me they were just given the
account and they apologised to me..

I very much doubt its the TB more likely to be the TB search, marketing or
social media agency who want to control the brand rather than embrace and
engage (ironic eh) infact I’d doubt that TB is fully aware of what has
happened (until they get into the office on monday morning and see the
hundreds of @ replies they've had)

~~~
thehodge
Just as an addition to this, a friend just pointed out this tweet

<https://twitter.com/#!/brandcarrie/status/20333195936>

About to set up a Tower Bridge Twitter with the IT boys... Any advice?

~~~
m0tive
I don't think we should start blaming the marketing agency for what has
happened (even if they did start the process). It is Twitter who should take
responsibility for silently transferring ownership of the @towerbridge account
and then effectively deleting it.

~~~
glenngillen
Though I feel little sympathy for an agency who looks at an already active
twitter account, sees it has 4000+ followers, and makes the determination that
"Hey, what we should do is take over this account and send marketing crap to
all these followers rather than continue to send them what they originally
signed up for. I mean, it's just a feed of what time the bridge will
open/close, it's unlikely any of these people live near by."

Way to piss off your target market.

------
mgkimsal
The followup post was basically "ell, we should have had a conversation about
it, rather than just yanking it". Certainly a decent claim. However, per the
old @towerbridge name holder, twitter _did_ contact him via email, and he'd
just overlooked it.

I'm not in a position now to see what the old account info had on it, but I
know there's been plenty of people I've wanted to reach out to for a number of
reasons, and it's sometimes damned near impossible to get ahold of someone
without doing it publicly. I can 'tweet' someone publicly, but can't DM if
they don't follow me. I can publicly blog post, perhaps, but often there's no
'contact form' (or it may just get ignored as spam). Usually blogs or other
info have no phone number or email on them. Facebook? Do I post "hey, please
call me!" on your wall?

Ugh - the web's become entirely far too 'one way', and then we wonder why
stuff like this happens? It's pretty damn _hard_ to make a connection to
someone without it being _public_ , and not every conversation should be made
in public.

------
evilpie
Recovered some of them with google and a quick and dirty script.
<http://pastebin.mozilla.org/1248302>

~~~
evilpie
Accurate data from <http://topsy.com/twitter/towerbridge>,
<http://pastebin.mozilla.org/1248326>

------
remi
Well, it looks like he _did_ get a notice.

New blog post: [http://infovore.org/archives/2011/06/12/towerbridge-a-bit-
mo...](http://infovore.org/archives/2011/06/12/towerbridge-a-bit-more-clarity)

------
jasonlotito
<http://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules>

"Trademark: We reserve the right to reclaim user names on behalf of businesses
or individuals that hold legal claim or trademark on those user names.
Accounts using business names and/or logos to mislead others will be
permanently suspended."

How they handled it might have sucked, but it was fairly clear what they would
end up doing in situations like this.

~~~
cubicle67
except that Twitter has a global namespace, and trademarks are what, national?

Say, as an example, I own Tim's Bike Shop in Australia, and have @timsbikeshop
on Twitter. What happens if there's a US Tim's Bike Shop that decides it wants
that Twitter id? To me, both have the same 'right' (I use quotes because it's
obviously not a right) to the id, but I win because I was in first. Does
Twitter assume because the second claimant is legit the first is not?

------
fomojola
Well, its Twitter. What were you expecting? You ride on their network for
free, you can't be surprised when they opt to kick you off it without warning.
Yes, the courtesy would be nice, but...

Set up a website.

~~~
leot
Perhaps what's most galling is that, without users creating good content
(users like the original @towerbridge) twitter would be nearly worthless.

"You ride on their network for free" as if users were leeching off of content
twitter itself had made, when it's possible to just as easily argue that it's
twitter who is leeching off of its users.

Musicians will often credit their "fans" as vital (e.g. [1]). Great music is
still great even if only heard by a few people, making the fans impact at best
indirect. Yet in the case of social networks, users and their participation
are all the network has, period.

[1] [http://www.celebuzz.com/2011-03-07/demi-lovato-tells-
fans-i-...](http://www.celebuzz.com/2011-03-07/demi-lovato-tells-fans-i-
wouldnt-be-here-without-you-video/)

------
gavingmiller
I'm surprised Twitter hasn't tried to monetize this ala domain names. For
handles that I want to keep, I (and no doubt many others) would fork over the
cash to permanently secure it.

------
invisible
Why doesn't twitter just change the username to something ELSE instead of
deleting/banning the account?

------
DomainNoob
One thing I think would help would be if Twitter would open up registrations
to more than 15 letters.

------
jeffreymcmanus
Totally permissible under intellectual property law. The internet does not
invalidate the concept of trademark.

Totally stupid from a customer service perspective, the on the part of both
Twitter and the Tower Bridge.

~~~
dexen
Please note the sole purpose of trademarks is consumer protection. Protection
from counterfeit goods and services, where `counterfeit' means coming from
different source than the one the consumer expects due to branding the goods
or services bear.

Now ask yourself (or even better, Twitter), `were consumers being deceived, or
at risk of being?' `Is account name an instance of use of any brand?'

I believe Twitter should just follow the standard practice of using ™ and ®
(TM and (R)) symbols for visual identification of accounts that are
representing trademarks.

~~~
jeffreymcmanus
>> Please note the sole purpose of trademarks is consumer protection

Not true at all, although it's easy to understand why someone would wish that
this were the case. The sole purpose of trademarks (really trademark law) is
to protect the holder of the intellectual property.

Market confusion is a test used to determine whether a trademark infringement
has taken place, but it's only one of several possible tests.

------
__mark
I should probably look around for a new name then, I'm DanishBacon on twitter,
which puts me in the danger area for being deleted outright and replaced by a
bacon marketing scheme..

------
tokyoq
For those that care, Tower Bridge back online and tweeting at
<http://twitter.com/#!/twrbrdg_itself>

------
urbanjunkie
It turns out that Tower Bridge Exhibition (the org that now controls
@towerbridge) don't even have a trademark on Tower Bridge.

<http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm/t-find/t-find-text/>

------
a3_nm
Why are people still using Twitter? It's not exactly an elaborate service, and
there are alternatives available...

