4 ms·

He may have not created the account with the intension of misleading anyone, but he lost moral authority when he started replying to tweets in a manner designed

by atdt 10y ago

He may have not created the account with the intension of misleading anyone, but he lost moral authority when he started replying to tweets in a manner designed to reinforce confusion (for example, by using the pronoun 'we').

UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
Plus his profile picture is JFK airport's signage. That's clearly designed to mislead. Just go look at his own screenshots of his tweets in the article. It is pretty damning.
- atdt 10y ago
  It is not. It was derived from the banner image on this page: http://airportparkingguides.com/jfk-airport-parking-guide/ http://airportparkingguides.com/jfk-airport-parking-guide/ I found it via a Google image search for "JFK airport"; it was the fifth result.
  - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
    You say "it is not" then link to something tying his profile image to the airport? All you've done is reinforce what I said, that it is clearly designed to mislead and impersonate the airport. People in this thread act like this is "David and Goliath" when in reality the owner of the JFK Twitter handle intentionally changed his profile picture to one associated with the international airport then acted as a representative in order to generate complaints/bad sentiment. It is pretty indefensible. It wasn't an accident or a mistake. He did it over days, not hours, and further compounded the deceit by changing the account's profile picture to misleading people into believing he was the facility. Sorry, but I would have killed that account too. I would not be able to trust him not to do it again in the future, and frankly he might be better off losing it than getting sued by the airport (even if he doesn't appreciate that at the moment).
    - jack9 10y ago
      They meant "it is not [JFK signage]" which is a pedantic attempt to deflect because they either have nothing to add or think it's fine and rather not defend it directly. The profile image is specifically related to JFK by image (which he sought and chose)...making it intentionally confusing or casually confusing because he rather use a clip of an image from a site dedicated to JFK airport, rather than make up his own MSpaint image. Indefensible is the correct term, if-and-only-if Twitter has decided that monikers don't mean anything unless they do. There have been similar fights in naming Guilds in WoW, AOL usernames, etc. It's to be expected and acting surprised is just noise.
      - atdt 10y ago
        I completely agree. I did not mean that it is not official JFK signage, and therefore OK. The fact that the picture was very likely found via an image search for "jfk airport" is just further evidence of deliberate impersonation. It is not exculpatory in any way.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

by atdt 10y ago

UnoriginalGuy 10y ago

Plus his profile picture is JFK airport's signage. That's clearly designed to mislead. Just go look at his own screenshots of his tweets in the article. It is pretty damning.

atdt 10y ago
It is not. It was derived from the banner image on this page: http://airportparkingguides.com/jfk-airport-parking-guide/ http://airportparkingguides.com/jfk-airport-parking-guide/ I found it via a Google image search for "JFK airport"; it was the fifth result.
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  You say "it is not" then link to something tying his profile image to the airport? All you've done is reinforce what I said, that it is clearly designed to mislead and impersonate the airport. People in this thread act like this is "David and Goliath" when in reality the owner of the JFK Twitter handle intentionally changed his profile picture to one associated with the international airport then acted as a representative in order to generate complaints/bad sentiment. It is pretty indefensible. It wasn't an accident or a mistake. He did it over days, not hours, and further compounded the deceit by changing the account's profile picture to misleading people into believing he was the facility. Sorry, but I would have killed that account too. I would not be able to trust him not to do it again in the future, and frankly he might be better off losing it than getting sued by the airport (even if he doesn't appreciate that at the moment).
  - jack9 10y ago
    They meant "it is not [JFK signage]" which is a pedantic attempt to deflect because they either have nothing to add or think it's fine and rather not defend it directly. The profile image is specifically related to JFK by image (which he sought and chose)...making it intentionally confusing or casually confusing because he rather use a clip of an image from a site dedicated to JFK airport, rather than make up his own MSpaint image. Indefensible is the correct term, if-and-only-if Twitter has decided that monikers don't mean anything unless they do. There have been similar fights in naming Guilds in WoW, AOL usernames, etc. It's to be expected and acting surprised is just noise.
    - atdt 10y ago
      I completely agree. I did not mean that it is not official JFK signage, and therefore OK. The fact that the picture was very likely found via an image search for "jfk airport" is just further evidence of deliberate impersonation. It is not exculpatory in any way.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]