4 ms·

He said you can still impersonate as long as “parody” is included in the handle. I don’t understand the issue with evading fraudulent accounts. Do you people

He said you can still impersonate as long as “parody” is included in the handle. I don’t understand the issue with evading fraudulent accounts. Do you people really think 1000 fake Kanye’s floating around makes Twitter a better place simply because it’s more free?

rpdillon 4y ago
One of the points I found most interesting in The Onion's Supreme Court amicus brief[0] is the notion that parody loses its power when the reader knows up front that it's all fake. I found the whole brief quite readable, but the paragraph starting at the bottom of page 3 directly discusses this. Interestingly, the case the court is deciding is about a parody police department account on Facebook, which I assume would run afoul of Twitter's rule. [0]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rchaud 4y ago
free speech means exactly that. let a thousand fake kanye accts bloom.
- oska 4y ago
  Doesn't mean that to me. To me, free speech means anyone can say anything they like. Not anyone can pretend to be anyone they like.
  - awb 4y ago
    Depends on your definition of pretend I guess. Actors pretend to be people they’re not. Comedians pretend to be people all the time to make fun of them. Identity theft is using someone else’s identity for the purpose of committing fraud. I think the fraud is the actual crime, not impersonation. For example, there are professional impersonators of famous actors. I don’t think it’s illegal in any way.
    - oska 4y ago
      Yes, context matters. Actors on a stage or in a film are clearly 'playing a role'. But when they play the role of a real person there is usually (always?) a disclaimer on the film. Quoting from an interesting article on the origin of this disclaimer [1], it runs : > “This is a work of fiction. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events, is purely coincidental.” I don't believe comedians use any disclaimer, but the context of their show and usually the exaggerated portrayal of the real life person caricatured makes it clear that it is a parody. In an online forum where some people are representing themselves under their real names, and where verification is offered on those real name accounts, then I think it's reasonable for people who are using the real name of a person so as to parody them are required to make the parody explicit, and people who don't can be removed to prevent fraudulent impersonation. And I don't see that as a restriction of free speech (anyone can still comment, including pseudonymously, but not by fraudulently pretending to be another, real life, person). [1] https://slate.com/culture/2016/08/the-bizarre-true-story-behind-the-this-is-a-work-of-fiction-disclaimer.html https://slate.com/culture/2016/08/the-bizarre-true-story-beh...
      - awb 4y ago
        Fair points if you’re talking about fraud, but this is comedy. And comedy traditionally has greater latitude as misleading the viewer is the intent. This issue of being required to label parody is headed to the Supreme Court, so perhaps it’ll be settled there (on a public level — Twitter is a private company and can implement whatever custom rules they want). The Onion filed an amicus brief on this specific issue of the necessity of labeling parody. Their argument is that believing the content is true is essential to the comedic function of parody. Parody progresses into a mocking absurdity and the force of this pivot can only happen to its maximum extent if the viewer thinks if only for a brief moment that the content might be real. Labeling it as a parody effectively takes all the energy out of the joke to follow. HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33481989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33481989 And the hilarious Supreme Court brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...

rpdillon 4y ago

One of the points I found most interesting in The Onion's Supreme Court amicus brief[0] is the notion that parody loses its power when the reader knows up front that it's all fake. I found the whole brief quite readable, but the paragraph starting at the bottom of page 3 directly discusses this. Interestingly, the case the court is deciding is about a parody police department account on Facebook, which I assume would run afoul of Twitter's rule. [0]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rchaud 4y ago

free speech means exactly that. let a thousand fake kanye accts bloom.

oska 4y ago
Doesn't mean that to me. To me, free speech means anyone can say anything they like. Not anyone can pretend to be anyone they like.
- awb 4y ago
  Depends on your definition of pretend I guess. Actors pretend to be people they’re not. Comedians pretend to be people all the time to make fun of them. Identity theft is using someone else’s identity for the purpose of committing fraud. I think the fraud is the actual crime, not impersonation. For example, there are professional impersonators of famous actors. I don’t think it’s illegal in any way.
  - oska 4y ago
    Yes, context matters. Actors on a stage or in a film are clearly 'playing a role'. But when they play the role of a real person there is usually (always?) a disclaimer on the film. Quoting from an interesting article on the origin of this disclaimer [1], it runs : > “This is a work of fiction. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events, is purely coincidental.” I don't believe comedians use any disclaimer, but the context of their show and usually the exaggerated portrayal of the real life person caricatured makes it clear that it is a parody. In an online forum where some people are representing themselves under their real names, and where verification is offered on those real name accounts, then I think it's reasonable for people who are using the real name of a person so as to parody them are required to make the parody explicit, and people who don't can be removed to prevent fraudulent impersonation. And I don't see that as a restriction of free speech (anyone can still comment, including pseudonymously, but not by fraudulently pretending to be another, real life, person). [1] https://slate.com/culture/2016/08/the-bizarre-true-story-behind-the-this-is-a-work-of-fiction-disclaimer.html https://slate.com/culture/2016/08/the-bizarre-true-story-beh...
    - awb 4y ago
      Fair points if you’re talking about fraud, but this is comedy. And comedy traditionally has greater latitude as misleading the viewer is the intent. This issue of being required to label parody is headed to the Supreme Court, so perhaps it’ll be settled there (on a public level — Twitter is a private company and can implement whatever custom rules they want). The Onion filed an amicus brief on this specific issue of the necessity of labeling parody. Their argument is that believing the content is true is essential to the comedic function of parody. Parody progresses into a mocking absurdity and the force of this pivot can only happen to its maximum extent if the viewer thinks if only for a brief moment that the content might be real. Labeling it as a parody effectively takes all the energy out of the joke to follow. HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33481989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33481989 And the hilarious Supreme Court brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...