I appreciated the points made in the 'Risks' section, specifically concerning 1) creating profiles for people who are not on your platform, and 2) having fake profiles to maximize liquidity. Do you think the reputational risk is the same when the profiles are for companies, instead of individual creators, as you described in your example?
In the situation I am considering, engagement is nurtured in relation to publicly available content about a company.
I think people may have an expectation that a company has less right to privacy than an individual creator, but I still don't *love* the tactic. The company is probably a bit less likely to put you on blast on X / Instagram / TikTok though :-)
The callout is helpful. After thinking about your feedback, I did some searching about profiles that were created on behalf of people and companies and that were ultimately claimed in the future, leading me to believe trust/reputation was not *significantly* lost.
It's not clear to me that Wikipedia profiles are ever "claimed" in the same sense of the examples you provided in the article. In addition, I'm not exactly sure if public figure profiles on LinkedIn are created on their behalf. As for Twitter/X, obviously the blue check mark no longer means verified but I'm not sure if they were created on behalf of public figures and companies earlier in the company's history.
That's not a big enough sample size for me to feel very comfortable creating people/company profiles on their behalf. But it seems "acceptable" when using publicly available information that doesn't negatively impact the accuracy of your service's engagement model within your company's legal and operational constraints
I appreciated the points made in the 'Risks' section, specifically concerning 1) creating profiles for people who are not on your platform, and 2) having fake profiles to maximize liquidity. Do you think the reputational risk is the same when the profiles are for companies, instead of individual creators, as you described in your example?
In the situation I am considering, engagement is nurtured in relation to publicly available content about a company.
I think people may have an expectation that a company has less right to privacy than an individual creator, but I still don't *love* the tactic. The company is probably a bit less likely to put you on blast on X / Instagram / TikTok though :-)
The callout is helpful. After thinking about your feedback, I did some searching about profiles that were created on behalf of people and companies and that were ultimately claimed in the future, leading me to believe trust/reputation was not *significantly* lost.
Crunchbase: https://support.crunchbase.com/hc/en-us/articles/360019601394-Updating-a-Company-Profile
Google My Business: https://www.digitalmaas.com/blog/create-google-my-business-profile/
It's not clear to me that Wikipedia profiles are ever "claimed" in the same sense of the examples you provided in the article. In addition, I'm not exactly sure if public figure profiles on LinkedIn are created on their behalf. As for Twitter/X, obviously the blue check mark no longer means verified but I'm not sure if they were created on behalf of public figures and companies earlier in the company's history.
That's not a big enough sample size for me to feel very comfortable creating people/company profiles on their behalf. But it seems "acceptable" when using publicly available information that doesn't negatively impact the accuracy of your service's engagement model within your company's legal and operational constraints