[Nav_Panel]

Is a brand considered a "real name and real person"?

[will_brown]

Yes, at least according to the Supreme Court of The United States.

[marenkay]

In most legislations, a brand is considered a "legal person". (which is hilarious when you register your company as forms kind of treat the company as if it were a person)

[metalliqaz]

I don't see why not. A brand is owned by a company. That company has a registered name and real people working the social media accounts.

[scrollaway]

Guess we'll have to get rid of those guys then:

* https://twitter.com/ReactJS

* https://twitter.com/postgresql

* https://twitter.com/officialcatfact

[metalliqaz]

Why? Same applies.

[scrollaway]

There is no ReactJS company. There is a company behind ReactJS but that's irrelevant since there's also a company behind those millions of fake users.

What about my pet open source projects, shall I shut down their account because they don't have a company backing them?

[scott_s]

I think you're arguing a point that no one upthread made. The proposal was to make sure that a real person was behind the account, in good faith - not necessarily that person's personal account. So your accounts and the ones you linked to upthread are fine. The "good faith" part means that there can't be a hard-and-fast rule for which Twitter accounts are okay. Human judgement will be required to sort out good-faith users (including brands or open source projects) from bad-faith users (paying people to run accounts that just inflate other accounts' numbers).