cchings: Wait, so people are considered property? I thought slavery was outlawed years ago

Not in Misura.

This must be the new economy Fartbammy promised us. Virtual possession of people and their internets. Why didn't I think of that?

BarbadoSlim: cchings: Wait, so people are considered property? I thought slavery was outlawed years ago

Not in Misura.



No no no Mr. Josey Wales, there is such a thing in this country we call justice.

Generation_D: What the Marketer won't tell you is, those followers won't be worth jack once they start using the feed for marketing and almost everyone quits following.

Not as long as they keep hitting the sweet spot for optimal RoI and avoiding churn.

They act like twitter is a viable advertising medium, I don't follow twitter for ads, its mainly done for people that write interesting articles or sometimes to find comedians in town. Usually though its used to pass on stupid videos which I have now started seeing being bought up by advertising companies.

The internet is turning into one giant porn filled ad.

Ah, the Internet. Where everything is free and no one can make any money but at the same time somehow all these "potential customers" are also worth tons of money.

Just like how that crappy song that was barely even worth the time it took you to download for free is also worth $80-150 thousand dollars in a lawsuit.

If I were the judge in this case, the question would be whether the guy made the twitter account with his own private email address or a company email address. I saw an interview with the guy on CNN last week where he said he created the account with his own person gmail address. In that case, I'm not sure how a twitter account is any different that a facebook account. Could a company force a former employer to turn over a personal facebook account, simply because that person had work contacts as friends?

If companies want control over their employees' work-related twitter accounts, then the accounts should be created using company resources and email addresses. Otherwise, tough shiat.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: "To claim that they're entitled to $2.50 per follower per month defies reason. If that's the case, Kim Kardashian's account would probably be worth billions of dollars a year."

In Monopoly money, maybe.

Steven Abootman of the World Canadian Bureau would like a copy of your newsletter.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: "To claim that they're entitled to $2.50 per follower per month defies reason. If that's the case, Kim Kardashian's account would probably be worth billions of dollars a year."

In Monopoly money, maybe.

Honestly Kim's followers are probably so stupid and easy to market to they might be about that valuable. I bet if she tweets "I just had bad diareah at Taco Bell^tm" Taco Bells would be stuffed the following day.

This is the same logic that had pets.com trading at $100/share with their brilliant plan of having internet sales to ship dog food.

They'd probably settle for whatever he's suing them for owed wages.

I don't get it--did he just maintain control of the account after he left, and change the username? Or did he create a brand-new account and announce "HAI GUYZ, I'M NOW OVER HERE," thus prompting thousands to un-follow the old one and follow his new one? (I'm not familiar enough with Twitter to know if changing the username is possible).

If it's the former, then I can see how the company has at least some kind of case, since he essentially commandeered a company resource even after leaving. But if the followers followed him the person/writer, then that means they really didn't give a shiat about the company.

BarbadoSlim: cchings: Wait, so people are considered property? I thought slavery was outlawed years ago

Not in Misura.

It'll be a cold day in hell before I recognize them.

Sim Tree: Why not simply do this anyway? Fork the account. Post ' everyone who wants to follow example.com, go (here), and everyone who wants to follow Bob, click (here).'

Problem solved. Sheesh.

Either way, regardless of the transition in staffing, as a consumer I'd follow what I wanted to follow, even if it meant unfollowing someone and/or following someone new. If I really gave a shiat about PhoneDog outside of this particular writer, I'd make sure to follow both after they parted ways. Or just one or the other if that's all I cared about. If none of his followers care about the rest of PhoneDog, then maybe PhoneDog should've tried harder (i.e., paid him more) to keep him around.

The only real case the company has is if he sort of commandeered the account and created a practical disruption in their ability to reach their customer base, sort of like a database file going missing.

According to RIAA math, Fark's Twitter followers are worth $39,280.00 per second.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: FrancoFile: Steven Abootman of the World Canadian Bureau would like a copy of your newsletter.

I'll have to run it by Bob and Doug McKenzie first.


Barakku: Honestly Kim's followers are probably so stupid and easy to market to they might be about that valuable. I bet if she tweets "I just had bad diareah at Taco Belltm" Taco Bells would be stuffed the following day.

The naivest part of my psyche leads me to believe that people will eventually move on and leave her to be forgotten by time itself.

But then again, I sadly realize that in the War Against Stupidity (TM), I'm on the losing side.

She will, like all others before her, fall out of fame. Perhaps she'll overdose, perhaps she'll get fat, maybe she'll get too much plastic surgery or say some amazingly bigoted remarks. Some day her number will be up. I honestly wonder how many watch celebrities just to see how they'll fall.

So now we buy stuff with facebook and twitter money? Its the new economy we are saved!!!!