69 ms·

While I'm on the side of TheOatMeal on this one, I wouldn't be so quick to defend someone signing up as @Charles_Carreon on Twitter. That person impersonated th

by chime 14y ago

While I'm on the side of TheOatMeal on this one, I wouldn't be so quick to defend someone signing up as @Charles_Carreon on Twitter. That person impersonated the lawyer during a very sensitive time and negatively changed public view, even if later Twitter suspended the account. It's not parody, it's impersonation. I can't create a fake account 'pg[invisible-unicode-character]' here and start posting things like "I wish dhouston would just sell Dropbox to Apple already." That's not acceptable, regardless of whether the person being impersonated is loved or hated by all.

warfangle 14y ago
Apparently most of what he was doing was just linking to CC's press interviews. According to TFA, at least.
- chime 14y ago
  You just need one line to change public opinion. I myself fell for the following line when I saw it last week: > "You sir, are a dumbass. I am doing what any sane individual would do." I saw it linked somewhere, briefly glanced at it, thought "wow, this guy's not fit to be anyone's lawyer", and moved on. I didn't have time or desire to dig into it to find out if it was really him or not. This article has managed to salvage some of that but I doubt everyone who saw the impersonated tweet will learn about the truth. It's really no different from being labelled "Arrested for XYZ" by the media and then being proven 100% guilt-free. Even if the media redacts the stories or posts new information, the damage is already done in most cases.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    > I saw it linked somewhere, briefly glanced at it, thought "wow, this guy's not fit to be anyone's lawyer", and moved on. In fairness, the real guy's public statements have had the same effect. I'm not sure a parody account can really be said to have affected the guy's reputation, it's already about as tanked as can be.
crazygringo 14y ago
But doesn't Twitter have a "verified" badge for real-world people whose identities have been verified? I thought it went without saying that Twitter handles, above all newly-created ones, were fake unless they had that additional badge.
- petercooper 14y ago
  No, only for a small subset of people and all chosen at Twitter's discretion (they don't take suggestions).
  - dpeck 14y ago
    I believe they also have some stipulations on if you're being impersonated they might verify you.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      According to the article on Ars Technica, the lawyer sent copies of his ID to Twitter to verify he was being impersonated and the account was suspended.
tptacek 14y ago
I've been following this case on Popehat and Lowering The Bar (two excellent legal blogs) and both have been at pains, in every post, to plead with the Internet to stop fucking with Carreon and FJ: the Internet pranks are, regardless of how Carreon appears to be reacting to them, making Carreon's actual goals easier to obtain. The consensus seems to be that Carreon has less than no case, and may in fact be setting himself up for significant reprisals from the courts... except to the extent that douchey Internet pranksters build a case for him by breaking the law themselves.
- hobin 14y ago
  But are such people breaking the law? To my knowledge, being a douchebag on the internet is not a crime (nor do I think it should be). Could you perhaps point me to one of those posts that explain this in more detail?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Be a douchebag if you must, but don't break the law doing it, is the point.
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    At some point it can become harassment, which is a crime.
  - icegreentea 14y ago
    If being a douchebag involves defamation, then yes, you can be sued in civil court. This is all going under civil action, not criminal court (big difference). Remember, broadly speaking, defamation is just undertaking some action that gives some entity a negative image. Before you go nuts on that, yes, truth is a defense against defamation (ie: it is not defamation if it is true). At which point parody becomes defamation is something of a grey line, which Carreon will try his hardest to use. If Carreon can paint the image in court that the internet is after him, it would probably help him make his case that the fake twitter account is defamation, not mere parody. After all, context matters.
- makomk 14y ago
rome 14y ago
Twitter requires no ID to create an account. The account could have been Carreon in so much as Twitter knows. Even Facebook, which requires your "real name", has no idea if you are who you say you are.
beedogs 14y ago
> While I'm on the side of TheOatMeal on this one, I wouldn't be so quick to defend someone signing up as @Charles_Carreon on Twitter. That person impersonated the lawyer during a very sensitive time and negatively changed public view, even if later Twitter suspended the account. It's not parody, it's impersonation. And the person that created the account was from Sweden. Carreon is going to have a fun time getting him into court in the US for a civil case.

by chime 14y ago

warfangle 14y ago

Apparently most of what he was doing was just linking to CC's press interviews. According to TFA, at least.

chime 14y ago
You just need one line to change public opinion. I myself fell for the following line when I saw it last week: > "You sir, are a dumbass. I am doing what any sane individual would do." I saw it linked somewhere, briefly glanced at it, thought "wow, this guy's not fit to be anyone's lawyer", and moved on. I didn't have time or desire to dig into it to find out if it was really him or not. This article has managed to salvage some of that but I doubt everyone who saw the impersonated tweet will learn about the truth. It's really no different from being labelled "Arrested for XYZ" by the media and then being proven 100% guilt-free. Even if the media redacts the stories or posts new information, the damage is already done in most cases.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  > I saw it linked somewhere, briefly glanced at it, thought "wow, this guy's not fit to be anyone's lawyer", and moved on. In fairness, the real guy's public statements have had the same effect. I'm not sure a parody account can really be said to have affected the guy's reputation, it's already about as tanked as can be.

crazygringo 14y ago

But doesn't Twitter have a "verified" badge for real-world people whose identities have been verified? I thought it went without saying that Twitter handles, above all newly-created ones, were fake unless they had that additional badge.

petercooper 14y ago
No, only for a small subset of people and all chosen at Twitter's discretion (they don't take suggestions).
- dpeck 14y ago
  I believe they also have some stipulations on if you're being impersonated they might verify you.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    According to the article on Ars Technica, the lawyer sent copies of his ID to Twitter to verify he was being impersonated and the account was suspended.

tptacek 14y ago

I've been following this case on Popehat and Lowering The Bar (two excellent legal blogs) and both have been at pains, in every post, to plead with the Internet to stop fucking with Carreon and FJ: the Internet pranks are, regardless of how Carreon appears to be reacting to them, making Carreon's actual goals easier to obtain. The consensus seems to be that Carreon has less than no case, and may in fact be setting himself up for significant reprisals from the courts... except to the extent that douchey Internet pranksters build a case for him by breaking the law themselves.

hobin 14y ago
But are such people breaking the law? To my knowledge, being a douchebag on the internet is not a crime (nor do I think it should be). Could you perhaps point me to one of those posts that explain this in more detail?
- tptacek 14y ago
  Be a douchebag if you must, but don't break the law doing it, is the point.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  At some point it can become harassment, which is a crime.
- icegreentea 14y ago
  If being a douchebag involves defamation, then yes, you can be sued in civil court. This is all going under civil action, not criminal court (big difference). Remember, broadly speaking, defamation is just undertaking some action that gives some entity a negative image. Before you go nuts on that, yes, truth is a defense against defamation (ie: it is not defamation if it is true). At which point parody becomes defamation is something of a grey line, which Carreon will try his hardest to use. If Carreon can paint the image in court that the internet is after him, it would probably help him make his case that the fake twitter account is defamation, not mere parody. After all, context matters.
makomk 14y ago

rome 14y ago

Twitter requires no ID to create an account. The account could have been Carreon in so much as Twitter knows. Even Facebook, which requires your "real name", has no idea if you are who you say you are.

beedogs 14y ago

> While I'm on the side of TheOatMeal on this one, I wouldn't be so quick to defend someone signing up as @Charles_Carreon on Twitter. That person impersonated the lawyer during a very sensitive time and negatively changed public view, even if later Twitter suspended the account. It's not parody, it's impersonation. And the person that created the account was from Sweden. Carreon is going to have a fun time getting him into court in the US for a civil case.