[feature] change social media account name default

[tieguy]

[This is probably my first pull request intended to create a substantive policy change, rather than merely clarifying existing policies as I understand them. Triage/ignore/close with that in mind.]

I think for most projects, social network names like "@ILoveProjectName" are pretty appropriate and non-confusing, especially when paired with a clear statement in the social network bio field. (See, for example, @NYTIsOnIt's bio.) This proposed language reflects that as a default.

If we had an implementer's guide (which I am slowly working on in a branch) it might be appropriate to pair this with a comment effectively saying "remove this sentence if for some reason your brand is particularly weak or easy to confuse".

[tieguy]

Also, curious what @pchestek thinks about this one - seems consistent with the Websites section of the Model Trademark Guidelines, but maybe this suggestion could be made more clear.

[pchestek]

Being a trademark maximalist at heart, I wouldn't add the suggested language. The difficulty with any express statement is that it only hurts your enforcement efforts. In my view the value in making statements is that it creates bright lines and more certainty, but this line isn't bright at all so it's not helpful, and in that case I would therefore keep my options open.

The difference with the Websites portion on Model Trademark Guidelines is that there are also other conditions designed to ensure that there can't possibly be confusion -- so the "don't confuse" is a safety net, because if you meet all the other conditions it shouldn't happen anyway. But that's not the case with social network nicknames, there is very little that the user can do to otherwise convey the actual relationship. I don't think that saying something on you bio page is that significant because it may not be presented on the same screen as the content (e.g., Twitter), so it may not be useful for clarifying the relationship. (Fun fact - for months I thought @RealDonaldTrump was a parody account.) And users never think a name is confusing ("everyone knows that there isn't any real "FooUniversity so it's not confusing!"), so you are just inviting trouble by entertaining it at all.

And then you legal dispute gets more convoluted, because it's not whether it's actually confusing, but whether the user is licensed, a contract interpretation over the word "clearly." Maybe it doesn't come out any differently but I wouldn't add the complexity.

I suppose you could have the view that allowing someone to to express their love for the project in their handle is beneficial to community-building and it's therefore worth the risk. But I don't think anyone's affection for the community is going to change because you say they can't use the trademark in a nick.

My two cents, TIFWIW.

[tieguy]

Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Pam. I tend to think that in a lot of "our" contexts, where the likelihood of enforcement is low except in the most extreme cases (e.g., GNOME), your last paragraph is actually quite important, but I understand the reluctance to propose a permissive default.

I don't think anyone's affection for the community is going to change because you say they can't use the trademark in a nick.

I don't know who was behind the "Pics From Website" Twitter account, but they were pretty irritated at WMF when asked to change their user name. Can't find the tweet about it now, though, and admittedly their tweeting has picked back up.