>The users did NOT endorse twitter more than they already do—that is, implicitly, by using twitter. Unless their handle is trademarked I don't see an issue.
No, but they are shown endorse a fake "Barista bar". Which is something they never did.
>I'd like to clarify I believe that Twitter fucked up, I just think the outrage(!?) is hysterical
A few online angry posts and news articles is "hysterical"? I reserve that word for people _actually_ foaming at the mouth, hacking attempts, death threats, etc.
>* Nobody is accusing them of actually faking endorsements, most people wouldn't recognize the people portrayed and they'd be pretty lame endorsements.*
An endorsement is an endorsement whether you recognize the person or not. And they did fake endorsements. It would take a perceptive viewer (of the kind that is lacking) to note that the ad is fake -- and even then, he could assume those are legit tweets.
Oh, and it doesn't have to be "most people". It's enough that their friends or followers recognize them. You except twitter to NOT use your name with words you never said.
No, but they are shown endorse a fake "Barista bar". Which is something they never did.
>I'd like to clarify I believe that Twitter fucked up, I just think the outrage(!?) is hysterical
A few online angry posts and news articles is "hysterical"? I reserve that word for people _actually_ foaming at the mouth, hacking attempts, death threats, etc.
>* Nobody is accusing them of actually faking endorsements, most people wouldn't recognize the people portrayed and they'd be pretty lame endorsements.*
An endorsement is an endorsement whether you recognize the person or not. And they did fake endorsements. It would take a perceptive viewer (of the kind that is lacking) to note that the ad is fake -- and even then, he could assume those are legit tweets.
Oh, and it doesn't have to be "most people". It's enough that their friends or followers recognize them. You except twitter to NOT use your name with words you never said.