Great post. Unfortunately, Twitter is getting big enough that people will have to start declaring their affiliations with certain products and services. But it will be tricky. Like Josh says, 140 characters is not a lot of room, so will it be judged on the number of tweets? Will they be forced to use hashtags? As our world becomes commercialized, the dirty part (law) follows close behind.

Bummer.

Cheers,
Dwayne
.-= Dwayne Waite Jr.´s last blog ..The Pros and Cons of People not Thinking Anymore =-.

I get disclosing your affiliations with blogging, but Twitter? C’mon… it takes 140 characters to even establish your affiliation, let alone talk about your product.

And as far as Kim’s “defamatory” comments are concerned, I completely disagree. How often in the past have celebrities chosen Coke over Pepsi? “I don’t like product a… I am a product b man/woman.” It’s called marketing….

And sure, Kim’s response may have included the word “unhealthy,” which could be construed as defamatory, but maybe Siegal should have checked his facts before reporting that she was on his diet. In fact, could she sue HIM for reporting that she was on a cookie diet, which is surely incongruent with her image and thus, defamatory of HER character?

I really hope a few solid, common sense precedence are set soon so that these types of scenarios don’t ruin it for the rest of us.
.-= Josh Braaten´s last blog ..What’s Your 2010 Online Marketing Resolution? =-.

Realistically, if your point is defensible then resorting to lawyers is utterly pointless.

Win the argument, change their opinion.