Right to Reply: ‘Fake celebrities’ rife on social media
- Added:
- Jun 22, 2009
The rise of social media has resulted in a raft of celebrity impersonators. Rob Marcus, director of Chat Moderators, looks at just who should be policing this new phenomenon.
It is a sad fact that social networking seems to have spawned its own version of identity theft – people pretending to be celebrities. Businesses with social networks now need to be aware of this growing threat as those that take a lax attitude towards impersonation, could find that more serious complaints follow such as defamation or invasion of privacy if the impersonator begins making slanderous or false statements.
Third party social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, have taken a zero tolerance approach to impersonation of any kind, terminating any account if they suspect it is being run by an impersonator.
The need for moderating networks for cases of impersonation has recently been driven by a number of high profile celebrity cases such as Beyonce Knowles who recently considered taking legal action against people impersonating her on Twitter.
Whoopi Goldburg now refuses to create an online profile, because she already feels powerless over the countless pages attributed to her on social networking sites like Facebook.
Also recently, a Twitter account that gathered over 20,000 followers, under the guise of the Dalai Lama was recently pulled after representatives informed the company that the profile had been created by an impersonator.
Most moderation software enables you to identify whether a post is being made with the username of, or worded as though coming from, a public figure. That way, if a complaint is received, there is an audit trail to follow and appropriate action can be swiftly taken.
Like in so much of social media moderation, what is really important is that potential problems are spotted early, and if not addressed at the time, recorded so that a fast response can be made in the event that the ‘real Beyonce’, for example, stands up and expresses their displeasure.
What the courts don’t like to see is a slack attitude on the part of the publishers of UGC when it comes to content that may turn out to be defamatory or privacy invading.
By Rob Marcus
Director
Chat Moderators
