3 ms·
Real harm would be hard to prove, but this is deeply unprofessional on Twitter's part. You could probably make a case for implied endorsement, and maybe even wi
by potatolicious 13y ago
Real harm would be hard to prove, but this is deeply unprofessional on Twitter's part. You could probably make a case for implied endorsement, and maybe even win, but that seems besides the point.
This would be like a Google commercial featuring "blowski, Google User" in one part. There's no real harm to you, and you are a Google user (I assume), but you've been publicized in a massive way that you never consented to. People do not appreciate being thrust into the limelight suddenly and without warning.
This isn't a huge outrage, but it does suggest some process failure on Twitter's part. You never, ever, ever, ever, ever mock up designs with real user data. This looks like what happened here - someone thoughtlessly used the username and profile pic in a mockup, which eventually made its way to PR without verification.
There are some poor processes in Twitter's design department, evidently. Hopefully they'll learn from this. Never mock up designs with real data. Twitter should have a reserve of handles/profiles they actually own for marketing uses.
- ampersandy 13y agoMost feature launches that need a 'scapegoat' use employees' likenesses or profiles. For example: - the 'Twitter Teacher' who appears in the sign up flow used to work at Twitter; - and, the profiles used in the verification flow are also employees (http://dashes.com/anil/2013/03/what-its-like-being-verified-on-twitter.html http://dashes.com/anil/2013/03/what-its-like-being-verified-...). I agree that this was unprofessional though and hope the offenders learn from the mistake.
- duaneb 13y ago> deeply unprofessional on Twitter's part. Agreed, but 'deeply unprofessional' should not imply hysteria. Worst case scenario, someone thinks their friend likes a coffee shop that does not exist.
- dllthomas 13y agoI agree that hysteria would be an inappropriate response.