Published: Dec 01, 2008 - 02:14 pm
Story Found By: BrianChappell 1633 Days ago
Category: SEM
9 Comments
9 Comments
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:


Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Digital Marketing Depot. Upcoming online events include:
Comments
Great dialog Lisa. Weve been following this case since the beginning, as has our law firm. This is not the end of anything, nor the beginning. To the We BuildPages readers, we invite you to read up on what Lee Odden was tweeting. What aimClear practices is quite a far throw from encouraging a precious young person to take her own life. Were closer to Anne Landers, Ask Beth, Betty Crocker and the Maytag Man. Were not comparing apples to apples here. Ill also say that Im the father of 2 incredible teenage daughters who are quite active in social media. @ aimClear and in our home, we follow the law, morals and our well documented track record of advocating for social media marketing responsibilities. :) Here are additional jumping off points for this dialog: Thanks in advance to Lisa for hosting this discussion. Don’t Pee in the Pool. Responsible Social Media Marketing Does Gaming Social Sites Ruin Lives? Manipulate to Serve: Marketing by Holistic (Front Door) Social Media Pitch New Series: Avatar Theory, Common Social Media Participation Models Avatar Theory #3: The DoFollow Link Builder Eyes & Ears: Walled Garden Forum Rat Avatars
Why so serious? Lisas article is senational link bait... its supermarket tabloid stuff (starting with the inflammatory title). Every bad ruling by a judge gets corrected, as will this one. Society cant let a EULA legislate - you cant make an action criminal by saying so in a Terms of Use. I cant imagine what world we would have if pennams were "a felony".Clearly we have many poorly-informed, ill-prepared judges ruling around the country, as we see every time an Internet situation gets considered. But we also have exploitation by marketers seeking attention... eager to grab any news and highlight the most outlandish possibilities associated with it, in order to get attention.
Linkbait or not, she has a point - what counts as fake? Is it failure to disclose personal information to the world so everybody knows you are a real person or is it doing something deceptive that could cause harm as a result of the fake avatar? People use fake avatars to bully people online - but having a fake avatar does not necessarily make one a bully.
I agree with Lisa. Personally I feel odd of fake people and unreal connections. Yes someone can create a nickname, but I always like to digg into their real name in the profiles. Anyway this is a discussion that I encourage and like to see what other people think.
Personally, there is always going to be something sinister about concealing your identity, but at the same time its protection of personal information. I originally took the name yetanotherben as a pseudonym / nickname because I was unsure of what information I should be giving out at the stage of setting-up various accounts. It’s intent / actual use is what’s important here though I feel. It would be the intent of its use that is morally and legally important here I think. But it’s precisely this that I would be too difficult (impossible even) to legislate against. And also I dont think that anybody can legislate in a way as to force the release of personal details (so as not to be deemed fake), as it would contradict too many other laws. But to lie about details infers something a little more sinister... So I guess they pulled in what appears to be an all-encompassing law that is left to the judges to apply the ‘reasonable man’ test to each case...
As I mentioned on the actual article, I really disagree with the stance that this article is sensational link bait. The topic of fake avatars and their role in social media has always been something Ive spoken out against. This post is no different. However, take it how you will, I suppose.
Guess this puts a damper on the "steal your twitter neighbors avatar day" thing going on. :/
Out of curiosity, and weve been blogging about this today after Lisas article got me thinking (http://www.i-com.net/blog/criminalising-fake-avatars-means-everybody-loses-127/), what happens when different laws about online identities apply to different countries? If say, the U.S. says you have to provide full disclosure whereas the UK says that its ok as long as theres no malicious intent, does this mean that UK users will be stopped from going onto facebook.com? Could this sort of legislation lead to a walled-garden scenario where you can only visit your country-specific site so you dont accidentally violate a law of another country? It would kind of diminish the point of social media....
Not sure why youre so fixated on protecting your rights to create fake avatars. I dont agree with criminalizing fake avatars - IMO its a knee-jerk non-solution - but Id expect this discussion to revolve around how to prevent meaningless death not how to protect your rights to create phoney nicks on the net.