ClickZ:
"Facebook hoped today was the day it would get a decision from the Federal Election Commission regarding disclaimers in political ads on the site. Alas, the six commissioners could not muster the four-vote majority required to hand down an advisory opinion on the matter.
At stake is whether political candidates or groups running Facebook ads must include disclaimers regarding who paid for the ads within the ads themselves.
'Zero percent' of ads on Facebook currently include such disclaimers, said a Facebook representative during today's public FEC meeting, suggesting that the commission simply approve what is already occurring in political Facebook ads. 'If you were to adopt [an advisory opinion requiring disclaimers], you will cause an enormous amount of disruption in the campaign world, probably greater disruption than this agency has done' in several years, he said."
Lobby Comply Blog:
"In January, the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project released the results of a study showing 22% of people who are active on the internet were in some way engaged with political campaigns via social media in the 2010 election cycle. According to the study, people felt that connecting with candidates on Facebook and Twitter allowed them to be more in touch with the campaigns and said it gave them timely information."
Guest Post by Tyson Snow
"Twitter Expert" Tyson here. Two points worth noting regarding Twitter impersonation/name squatting when it comes to political campaigns:
First, Twitter's policy on "parody" accounts is fairly liberal. If it is clear that an account is a parody account, Twitter will likely let it slide. In trying to take down the account, the candidate or campaign will need to convince Twitter that the name squatter is actually confusing voters and/or the general public regarding the "tweeter's" (I still dislike that word) identity. The "impersonation parody policy" is available [here].
The second point is that a candidate, particularly a prominent candidate (or campaign) should (and used to) be able to get a "verified" account. This helped Twitter users
know whether the account was the "true" account associated with the candidate or campaign. http://twitter.com/#!/mittromney is a perfect example. The blue check-mark by his name means the account is verified and you can trust that it truly is Mitt Romney's account. Unfortunately, the automated "verified account application" form is currently closed: [link]. I'm guessing that Twitter will implement some similar feature in the future. Until that happens, I would use the clout of a campaign to make special requests to Twitter to get an account verified. Twitter may not respond to Joe Blow's like me, but you can bet your life if President Obama's account wasn't already verified, Twitter would verify it for him despite the fact that the verification system is currently "closed".
In the mean time, those victimized by name squatters should use the lack of a verification system as an additional reason for taking down impersonation accounts. Point this out when filling out the take-down form. "This individual is impersonating me and I can't stop it. Moreover, I can't verify my actual account. I have no way of proving to the Twitterverse (another word I dislike) which account is the true account." Twitter doesn't want to be involved in fights. Especially big, potentially legal fights, with well-funded campaigns and public figures (and those who have legal rights associated with their publicity rights).
The take-away: If someone is trying to pass themselves off as you, you will be able to get the account taken down. If someone is making fun of you, the account will stay up. If it is tough to tell, Twitter will probably take the account down but there is no certainty. Check out the parody policy linked-to above and then argue that the account does not meet the criteria for a parody account.
Self promotion time: Check out my blog: Social Media, Esq.™
NYTimes.com: "
Whatever else Ms. O’Donnell may symbolize, she stands for the idea that politics in the online age is increasingly borderless and can often be shaped more by national causes than by anything having to do with local constituents."
