The highly entertaining Twitter account purporting to be from Phil Spector has been revealed by its unidentified owner to be one of those naughty internet hoaxes. The anonymous - and really rather amusing - author revealed the jape with a tweet at 1pm GMT, confessing "I am NOT Phil SPector. I made this account as a joke. …
If anyone should take a lesson from this, it should be Phil Spector. Or anybody else of dubious morality. If it had been the real Phil Spector, it would have been fantastic PR for him - he appeared incredibly human and personable, if a little nutty.
I would suggest twitter feeds in this vein for Michael Jackson, Phorm, OJ Simpson, et al...
"even Phil's not that crazy"
For most people such a statement would probably be true, but I fear it's not for Phil.
And I got a bit suspicious when he started questioning whether his mentalistic nature might be due to him being a product of (nearly) incest.
If people who read Twitter really are stupid enough that someone posting as <insert celebrity name here> is believed to be that person to the point where damage can be caused then they really are twits.
"Twitter you need to start doing something to combat fake accounts. If I was a malicious person I could have caused damage."
Bollocks! Just because someone pretends they are someone on the internet doesn't mean they are -- after all, I'm fictional for fuck's sake.
As a long-time user of the internet I don't buy all this Web 2.0 business -- but I'm sure it's fun for those involved. However, users seem to have forgotten the fact you work on the assumption that nobody is who they say they are on the internet unless you know otherwise.
What next, genius?
So, what does Twitter need to start doing to combat fake accounts, Mr. Anonymous-Spector-Impersonator? Visit every new sign up in person, to check they are who they claim to be? What if my name happened to be Gordon Brown (hardly an uncommon moniker) and I signed up before my less fortunate namesake had the chance? Am I then also an imposter, for daring to share a name with the most tediously-appellated politician this century?
It's a shame, I thought Wilson the cockroach was a real nice touch, but I guess this guy isn't quite as clever as he seemed.
Sounds like a revenue opportunity for a savvy web developer who is less lazy than I am and will actually bother to do the implementation. Set up a web service that makes a note of all your user names on all the various social networking sites, so people can check whether a particular site profile actually belongs to you. If there is a profile on a site but you haven't registered it yourself, a quick will reveal that you aren't the owner. There isn't any need for the new service to have any connection with the social sites, but I guess it could have for added value. Needs a way of proving who you say you are to stop the jokers from grabbing your name on the new service, but cleverer people can work out those details themselves.
Tweets like "About to write an angry letter to the governer demanding that they return my wig" are still hilarious, even if forged.
I think it's a toss up which is nuttier
a) Adopting a cockroach.
b) Taking twitter seriously
... have an official site and have links to their social networking feeds on there; Robert Llewelyn and Stephen Fry being just two.
Sadly, it's gone now
Twitter does have an anti-impersonation stance, and has been known to nuke impostors before. Sadly, that included the original @TinaFey. The (supposedly) real @tina_fey isn't nearly as funny or insightful.
<<and confined ourselves to Bootnotes, the newspaper at the bottom of the vulture's cage>>
Dontcha mean chip-wrapper?
They really need to...
Stop worrying about what Twatter does, and have the people from the media who actually believed it was genuine taken away by people in white coats.
When it comes to simple facts like where a person's web site is the media should be a trusted source. This means that the media must in turn ensure that it gets its information for whether it is genuine from a trusted source. The twatter feed is not a trusted source.
In summary, the reason this hoax got so big isn't because of Twatter... it's because of the twats at the media who didn't voice any skepticism at all. Even a "flimsy arse covering statement" would give people something to think about.
Why haven't I seen anyone calling this certain web 2.0 microblog service Twatter before? Surely it's pretty obvious?
Hoax gets my thumbs up :)
Well Mr not Phil, I liked your approach to it all. Life is too short for all the crap it throws at us and I'm glad some people still have a sense of humor!
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire