A bit of a mini-row developing in the Twitter-sphere over the weekend, one which raises some interesting questions about the behaviour of social networking sites.
Last week, a Twitter username was registered: dailymail_uk.
It wasn’t an official twitter for the right-wing UK newspaper, but a spoof, with tweets like:
“Revealed! Santa’s 3-in-a-bed romp with Tooth Fairy and Jesus. Pictures on Page 42”
“DID MMR JAB KILL DIANA? Prince Philip implicated in cover-up”
As the mysterious person behind it has just written on their new blog, the number of followers shot up to more than 800 pretty quickly.
But then Twitter changed the account name and password…without telling the user.
“I checked, double checked and – for the hell of it – triple checked all my inboxes, labels, spam folders and deleted items. There was no sign of twitter sending me any notification as to when or wherefore they had disabled my account.”
We did send out the following notification yesterday. Did you check your spam folder?
We received a letter from the Associated Newspapers Limited, part of the Daily Mail & General Trust Plc, legal adviser, regarding Trademark violation and impersonation.”
Twitter then changed the username to “notdailymail_uk”
On the outset it looks like Twitter responded pretty sharpish to the complaint from the Associated Newspapers lawyers. But is it right you can have your name and password changed without being asked first?
Ultimately the control does lie with the websites, and we all agree to that when we register. But somehow it seems there’s something a bit sinister about it.
But then, I do hate the Daily Mail.