

Twitter caught faking users’ tweets - cahitonur
http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/24/oops-twitter-caught-faking-users-tweets-to-promo-new-ad-product/

======
alex_c
1) Headline is highly misleading. The "fake" tweets were for a fake product in
a mockup used in an ad for Twitter's ad platform. Still a bad idea, but
nowhere close to what the headline is implying.

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...](http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/07/23/twitter-fakes-real-users-
tweets-to-promote-ad-platform/)).

------
Osiris
_As Reuters states, California law recognizes the right of individuals to
their name and likeness, so companies cannot use people in ads without their
consent._

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

~~~
davvid
_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!

------
duaneb
I guess I don't quite understand the controversy. To my knowledge twitter
never claimed these were legitimate tweets, and they certainly looked
contrived. Who is getting fooled here and at what harm?

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!

~~~
coldtea
> _I guess I don 't quite understand the controversy. To my knowledge twitter
> never claimed these were legitimate tweets_

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?

~~~
duaneb
> Thinking they are legitimate is the DEFAULT expectation.

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.

~~~
coldtea
What's with this bizarro idea?

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...

~~~
duaneb
> 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.

~~~
coldtea
> _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._

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.

------
tty
VentureBeat caught reporting on stories that aren't stories.

------
mintplant
...What? Some designer used user's profiles as stand-ins when making a sample
screenshot. They didn't change it out when it was released. When it was
pointed out, they fixed it. So what?

------
eli
The headline is misleading. The problem isn't about "fake" tweets. Of course
the tweets were fake, the coffee bar doesn't exist in real life. The issue is
that they should have used dummy twitter handles and photos, not random real
ones.

------
nadaviv
Those footer links looks like they're part of the theme. Its quite common for
shady Wordpress themes to add SEO links, sometimes even making them invisible
to logged-in users, so that the website owner won't notice.

~~~
redblacktree
So _that 's_ how you make money making WP themes.

~~~
eli
Supposedly Google's getting better at punishing that sort of behavior. But,
yes.

------
snorkel
I just assume Twitter's Terms of Service allows them to whatever they care to
with your Twitter name and profile pic along with the naming rights to your
child born child.

------
ryanmcbride
Why couldn't Twitter have just made up the names?

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

~~~
cowpewter
And if you're too lazy to make up fake names and grab stock photos for an
internal mockup, at least use the accounts of fellow employees and not random
account holders.

------
koof
I feel so much second hand embarrassment when an article opens with an image
macro.

~~~
ryanmcbride
Same feeling when I see a tech company have memes in their recruitment ads.
Definitely not the kind of company I would want to work for.

------
ianstallings
I was gonna visit this coffee bar too but now I won't because the endorsement
tweets were faked! I am outraged sir. Outraged.

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.

~~~
coldtea
Very good idea, every time a company or organization screws you over, just
take it, and don't use them anymore. No need to complain ever.

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).

~~~
ianstallings
Nice false comparison of a simple annoyance to an important social cause. I'm
surprised you didn't use Schindler instead.

I appreciate your input.

~~~
coldtea
> _Nice false comparison of a simple annoyance to an important social cause._

"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?

~~~
ianstallings
I fail to see how not using twitter won't solve any of your hypothetical
problems. See, this is how we actually impact change - We stop using those
businesses. If it was more outrageous I might feel the need to protest
further, but this _is_ my protest.

