The tweeter and the phweeter - 8 views

• 
  #1 Chong Yi Ting on 18 Aug 09

   

  Article Link:
  http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20090728-157468.html
  
  Summary of Case:
  
  With the growing popularity of Twitter.com, a popular micro-blogging website which allows people to post short messages online or via SMS, a very different group of tweeters, known as 'phweeter' (phoney tweeter) has emerged.
  
  A phweeter is a person who pretends to be someone else and gives 'fake' accounts of the latter's everyday life. In the case of Singapore, affected parties included Part-time Singapore model Celestina Tiew and even companies like Singapore Airlines.
  
  It is stated under the terms of use on Twitter's website that 'parody impersonation accounts are allowed to exist' BUT it must be made 'obvious that the profile is fake, or it is subject to removal'. Twitter has also introduced a 'Verified account' feature recently to fend off phweeters.
  
  Ethical question:
  
  As opposed to actions taken against Phweeters who post fake/ negative information on a particular person/company they are impersonating, should those who post only post real accounts of/ information on the party concerned be tolerated? Is this not considered an infringement on rights of the party concerned as well?
  
  Ethical problem:
  
  This goes back to Twitter's terms of use that 'parody impersonation are allowed to exist' but it must be made 'obvious that the profile is fake'. This seems kind of vague and questionable to me. To what extent should such parodies be allowed? And exactly how 'obvious' is 'obvious'?
  
  Also, would it then fall on Twitter to bear responsibility for 'irreversible' damage done (besides revealing the IP address of the perpetrator) if people's views gets affected and reputations become tarnished by undesirable accounts from phweeters?

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Article Link: <br /> <a href="http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20090728-157468.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20090728-157468.html</a> <br /> <br /> Summary of Case: <br /> <br /> With the growing popularity of Twitter.com, a popular micro-blogging website which allows people to post short messages online or via SMS, a very different group of tweeters, known as 'phweeter' (phoney tweeter) has emerged. <br /> <br /> A phweeter is a person who pretends to be someone else and gives 'fake' accounts of the latter's everyday life. In the case of Singapore, affected parties included Part-time Singapore model Celestina Tiew and even companies like Singapore Airlines. <br /> <br /> It is stated under the terms of use on Twitter's website that 'parody impersonation accounts are allowed to exist' BUT it must be made 'obvious that the profile is fake, or it is subject to removal'. Twitter has also introduced a 'Verified account' feature recently to fend off phweeters. <br /> <br /> Ethical question: <br /> <br /> As opposed to actions taken against Phweeters who post fake/ negative information on a particular person/company they are impersonating, should those who post only post real accounts of/ information on the party concerned be tolerated? Is this not considered an infringement on rights of the party concerned as well? <br /> <br /> Ethical problem: <br /> <br /> This goes back to Twitter's terms of use that 'parody impersonation are allowed to exist' but it must be made 'obvious that the profile is fake'. This seems kind of vague and questionable to me. To what extent should such parodies be allowed? And exactly how 'obvious' is 'obvious'? <br /> <br /> Also, would it then fall on Twitter to bear responsibility for 'irreversible' damage done (besides revealing the IP address of the perpetrator) if people's views gets affected and reputations become tarnished by undesirable accounts from phweeters?</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top