The new year brought a treat for those who like to follow aging media moguls, with the launch of official Twitter accounts belonging to both News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch and his wife Wendi Deng, including some awkward banter around a tweet that Murdoch later deleted. The only problem with the voyeuristic appeal of this exchange, however, is that Deng wasn’t the real thing — although the account was marked as “verified,” with Twitter’s blue check mark, it was revealed to be a fake on Tuesday. A simple slip-up? Perhaps, but one that reinforces how little we know about Twitter’s verification process, something that is becoming more and more important as the service grows.

When Murdoch showed up on Twitter on December 31, there was widespread skepticism about whether it was the real News Corp. billionaire or not, despite the fact that the account was marked as verified. But a tweet from Twitter co-founder and chief product officer Jack Dorsey confirmed that it was the real Murdoch — and the “verified” check-mark, combined with the apparent back-and-forth between the Wendi Deng account and Murdoch’s, convinced many that it was also real (although some, including publishing industry veteran Michael Wolff, continued to doubt this).

How was the account verified? We don’t know

On Tuesday, however, it emerged that the Wendi Deng account had been set up as a prank by a British man, who said he “set up the account for a laugh” during the holidays, when he saw how much attention the Murdoch account was getting. The account’s creator said that he was as surprised as anyone when his account showed up with a blue check-mark, and that he hadn’t been contacted by anyone at Twitter about who he was or whether the account was for real, telling the Guardian:

I just couldn’t believe they would have verified such a high profile account without checking it out, but I absolutely received no communication from Twitter to the email address I used to register.

Twitter has refused to speak publicly about what happened with the Deng account, or to explain why it was verified and then suddenly un-verified — and the company has also repeatedly refused to talk on the record about how the verification process as a whole works, and why some accounts are chosen for verification and others aren’t. Even if the Deng verification was a simple screw-up due to reduced staffing levels over the holidays, Twitter’s radio silence on the issue makes it even harder to trust the entire process, and that could have ramifications that go beyond just the Murdoch case.

The “verified” program started with the blue check mark as a beta in 2009, primarily because a number of celebrities had complained about fake accounts pretending to be them, and the company said it wanted to help users figure out which were real. For a time, anyone could apply to have their account verified by using a form on the Twitter website, but this was later phased out and verification is now done on what the company calls a “case by case” basis, including advertisers and partners.

Twitter needs to be more transparent about the process

Given the rapid growth in Twitter’s user base, it’s not surprising that Twitter would have problems scaling a widespread verification program — and in some ways, doing this runs against the grain for the network, which has made a point of not requiring real names from users the way that Facebook and Google+ have. But even worse than having an arbitrary verification process is having one that doesn’t work properly, and one that the company is so opaque about. It’s not clear why Twitter doesn’t talk about it, but this vacuum of information is hardly conducive to gaining the trust of users.

And trust is something that Twitter needs in spades, especially as it grows and becomes a crucial part of the way that news and other information spreads in a social-media age. The network is already in a delicate situation when it comes to issues like free speech, with the State Department pressuring it to shut down accounts that belong (or appear to belong) to terrorist organizations, and other lobby groups launching legal claims against the company because it allegedly supports entities like Hezbollah by giving them a platform.

The company’s refusal to provide more details about how the verification process functions may stem in part from its desire to protect the users it is verifying, or to prevent the system from being gamed somehow. But if it is going to continue to ask for the trust of its users, it is going to have to be more transparent about how it manages the network, or risk losing the faith that it has spent so much time building up.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Hans Gerwitz and See-ming Lee

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The Internet of things: creating tomorrow’s health care
• Working out loud: how work media and social cognition are altering business
• Going social: Recommendations engines need to factor in consumer reviews

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

A couple of years ago, developer and designer Tom Armitage set up a Twitter account for one of London’s most famous inanimate objects, Tower Bridge. The idea was to give this famous piece of architecture a little personality, through a mashup that broadcast a message every time the iconic bridge raised or lowered to let ships pass into the city. That was pretty much it: a Twitter bot. But it was a gentle reminder of the world working around us that made the account beloved among a certain group of users. In a way, it’s as if @towerbridge was the city’s heartbeat.

Over the weekend, however, Armitage discovered that ownership of the account had been unceremoniously stripped from him and handed over to Tower Bridge Exhibition, a company that runs events inside the bridge buildings. In a post on his blog, he briefly outlined what had happened.

The account has just been gazumped, and a little, talking part of the city has been killed… I’m more than a little furious; after all, all the URLs that link to it are now incorrect, all the lifts, all the (puppet-mastered) banter is gone. Cool URLs don’t change, and these have just gone. And in their place: marketing.

In truth, it turns out that miscommunication was to blame, at least in part. Armitage later discovered that he had received a message from Twitter telling him that he faced losing the account — he just didn’t see it. Without a response from him, and facing a request from somebody who claimed to be the rightful, trademarked owner of “Tower Bridge”, Twitter apparently decided to wipe the account clean and hand over ownership. Was it the right thing to do?

Twitter’s policy is fairly standard, and is used to protect individuals and businesses from having their identities hijacked — after all, there have been plenty of fake Twitter feeds, impersonations and unofficial accounts over the years, some of them libelous. In fact, a couple of years ago one enterprising developer even sold @cnnbrk to CNN, despite the fact that CNN could have simply lodged a trademark claim against him. There’s little suggestion that Twitter should do anything different when it comes to squatting or deliberately trying to pass off an unofficial account as the real thing.

But @towerbridge’s supporters argue that’s not what was going on here. There was no attempt to pretend that it was official, and they say the account could easily have tweaked the account to make it even more obvious.

Some of them focus on the idea of Twitter as a representative of The Man. British designer Andy Budd argues that a presumption of guilt marks a bad day for Twitter. Meanwhile, comics writer Warren Ellis says it’s a great example of conflict between the owners of a city and those who inhabit it. Others question the appropriateness of the original application. The BBC’s Rory Cellan Jones, for example, wonders whether the new owners of the account wiped Armitage’s work, and whether they realize they have removed something interesting and much-liked.

In fact, there’s also the question of whether the initial trademark claim itself was valid. According to the U.K. Intellectual Property Office, there are actually dozens of companies that have trademarked the name “Tower Bridge” in Britain across a number of different fields. They include an IT business, a scientific instrument company, a leather goods manufacturer, a spirits and wine company and a brand of tobacco. The company that took over the @towerbridge account hasn’t actually trademarked “Tower Bridge” at all, but “Tower Bridge Events” and “Tower Bridge Exhibition” and “Tower Bridge, the Venue.” That name has only been secured for particular activities, none of which seem to relate to the information the old @towerbridge used to provide.

From the outside, this is a storm in a thimble-sized teacup. But whether or not it was right to kick Armitage off, the whole episode points to several bigger questions that are worth considering. Does Twitter’s trademark policy work? Should it improve verification? And, above all, how much is it prepared to invest in protecting users of all stripes?

One major stumbling block here, as I see it, is that Twitter’s size and popularity is not yet commensurate with its income. The business has around 200 million users, huge media exposure, a staff of around 500 and substantial funding. Yet the company’s revenues are still small. Faced with an onslaught of legal challenges from trademark owners, it’s always going to be tempting to keep costs down and err on the side of the litigious business owner rather than the individual user.

Tower Bridge is just a tiny example of that — there are dozens of cases happening at any given time, whether it’s adulterous sportsmen trying to block Twitter users from talking about him, or local governments chasing their critics, or national administrations trying to discover details about controversial users. Giving more room to trademark owners might be selling out, but it’s also a sensible business decision — the trouble is, users don’t always see why they should be the ones losing out.

Photograph used under Creative Commons license, courtesy of Flickr user Slideshow Bob

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

• Players and Strategies for Real-Time In-Stream Advertising
• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• Finding the Value in Social Media Data

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM — Tech News, Analysis and Trends

Based on linguist Dr. Deborah Tannen, conversational rituals are anticipated and accepted conversational conventions. When everyone existing is acquainted with these conventions, they work well. But when ways of speaking aren’t recognized as conventions and are used literally, you can find negative results on both sides.Conversational rituals common between men often include utilizing opposition such as banter, joking, teasing, playful put-downs, and avoiding getting in the one-down position.When these oppositional strategies are used virtually, the males may appear hostile when that’s not their intent. Their effort to prevent appearing one-down might be taken as arrogance.

Conversational rituals typical between women concentrate on sustaining an look of equality, getting into account the impact of the exchange on the other person, and downplaying their authority so they can have the job carried out without flexing their muscles in an obvious way.When women use conversational methods made to avoid appearing boastful and to take another person’s feelings into account, they might be perceived as much less confident and competent than they truly are.Like a result, both ladies and males often feel that they don’t get adequate credit for what they achieve, are not listened to, and do not get ahead as fast because they should.It adds towards the confusion when men and ladies may say the very same thing, but mean something completely different. A man’s type is a lot more literally targeted about the message degree of talk (what it says). Whenever a man claims: “Yes,” he signifies: “I agree with you.” A woman’s style is focused on the romantic relationship or metamessage degree. When a woman claims: “Yes,” she merely signifies: “I adhere to what you are saying.”

Understanding every other’s designs and the motives behind them is a very first action in breaking this destructive circuit within the workplace.Please maintain in mind that linguist study can uncover designs of conduct that contribute to some stereotype and help explain the conduct (for instance, indirectness) and eventually dispel the stereotype (for instance, that women are manipulative).These communication designs indicate basic tendencies, which should not be used as norms. The patterns have no inherent biological reason- observed cultural variations prove this.It can also be most likely that you can find generational distinctions in conduct. Some of the conventions may be more prevalent in the Boomer generation and earlier generations. Nevertheless, because these older generations play substantial roles in every level of society, from families to organizations to governments, it is beneficial to be able to recognize and interpret these conversational rituals.

Forex Robot World Cup Blogroll

http://www.campaignmonitor.com/forums/profile.php?id=19468

http://forums.champions-online.com/member.php?u=681121

http://www.chequer-board.net/user/frwbeckam90

http://www.codeplex.com/site/users/view/frwbeckam90yqb

http://www.codeproject.com/Members/frwbeckam90

http://www.connectusers.com/community/profile/frwbeckam90/

http://communities.bentley.com/user/Profile.aspx?UserName=frwbeckam90

http://www.amcharts.com/forum/profile.php?id=17424

Based on linguist Dr. Deborah Tannen, conversational rituals are anticipated and accepted conversational conventions. When everyone existing is acquainted with these conventions, they work well. But when ways of speaking aren’t recognized as conventions and are used literally, you can find negative results on both sides.Conversational rituals common between men often include utilizing opposition such as banter, joking, teasing, playful put-downs, and avoiding getting in the one-down position.When these oppositional strategies are used virtually, the males may appear hostile when that’s not their intent. Their effort to prevent appearing one-down might be taken as arrogance.

Conversational rituals typical between women concentrate on sustaining an look of equality, getting into account the impact of the exchange on the other person, and downplaying their authority so they can have the job carried out without flexing their muscles in an obvious way.When women use conversational methods made to avoid appearing boastful and to take another person’s feelings into account, they might be perceived as much less confident and competent than they truly are.Like a result, both ladies and males often feel that they don’t get adequate credit for what they achieve, are not listened to, and do not get ahead as fast because they should.It adds towards the confusion when men and ladies may say the very same thing, but mean something completely different. A man’s type is a lot more literally targeted about the message degree of talk (what it says). Whenever a man claims: “Yes,” he signifies: “I agree with you.” A woman’s style is focused on the romantic relationship or metamessage degree. When a woman claims: “Yes,” she merely signifies: “I adhere to what you are saying.”

Understanding every other’s designs and the motives behind them is a very first action in breaking this destructive circuit within the workplace.Please maintain in mind that linguist study can uncover designs of conduct that contribute to some stereotype and help explain the conduct (for instance, indirectness) and eventually dispel the stereotype (for instance, that women are manipulative).These communication designs indicate basic tendencies, which should not be used as norms. The patterns have no inherent biological reason- observed cultural variations prove this.It can also be most likely that you can find generational distinctions in conduct. Some of the conventions may be more prevalent in the Boomer generation and earlier generations. Nevertheless, because these older generations play substantial roles in every level of society, from families to organizations to governments, it is beneficial to be able to recognize and interpret these conversational rituals.

Forex Robot World Cup Blogroll

http://www.campaignmonitor.com/forums/profile.php?id=19468

http://forums.champions-online.com/member.php?u=681121

http://www.chequer-board.net/user/frwbeckam90

http://www.codeplex.com/site/users/view/frwbeckam90yqb

http://www.codeproject.com/Members/frwbeckam90

http://www.connectusers.com/community/profile/frwbeckam90/

http://communities.bentley.com/user/Profile.aspx?UserName=frwbeckam90

http://www.amcharts.com/forum/profile.php?id=17424

By Andrew Liszewski

Using this talking heart-rate monitoring MP3 player from Hammacher Schlemmer is a lot like working out while listening to the radio. But instead of the current top 20, you get to listen to your own music, and instead of crappy DJ banter every 1 to 5 minutes, it will pause your tunes to announce your current heart rate, or provide warnings when your pulse is above or below a predetermined target zone. An included chest strap does the actual heart beat monitoring duties, and wirelessly sends the data to the receiver/MP3 player which includes 1GB of memory, good for about 200 MP3 or WMA files. $79.95.

[ Talking Heart Rate MP3 Player ] VIA [ The Red Ferret Journal ]

If your next dinner party turns out to be even half as awkward as the last one, you’ll need to have these “Wind Up Breakdancers” on hand if you want people to stay for coffee and passive-aggressive banter between you and your significant other.

Just wind them up, cue “Rock It” by Herbie Hancock, and watch as your guests delicately nod in approval. You get both breakdancers for £9.99 — only available in the UK and currently sold out. Sorry for the tease!

If you’re dead set on getting these in the US, the site will ship outside the UK although “shipping charges to outside the UK mainland are significantly higher” and you’ll have to e-mail first to get a shipping quote. Still, they’re wind up breakdancers! Money is no object!

Wind Up Breakdancers [Chalfont Gifts via Nerd Approved]