When a character in a television show prominently uses a brand, we assume it could be because that placement was a paid consideration. Race car drivers are obviously being paid to wear logos or appear in commercials.

Yet, is it always assumed and obvious? Scott says it's a matter of common sense, but I'm sure many people see those advertisements as completely organic, which is exactly the intent of their placement. Similarly, if I saw an Apple tattoo I'd assume it was organic support, not paid support.

In both the former cases, a fictional character is doing the advertising – yes, even the race car driver's public persona is partial fiction. You'd be hard-pressed to name a paid visual endorsement in real life that isn't at least partially fictional due to a personally being filtered through a lens of a PR person or media coverage.

The Apple endorsement is personal, which is why it seems so shocking. We're encountering it without any filter or context. Person-to-person.

Because of that, what I feel like the two of you are arguing here is digital authenticity. Does Twitter represent a personal relationship or a fictional one? Because, if it's personal, then endorsement would be shocking, and David would win the argument.

While the three of us likely all take a personal approach to Twitter, I would posit that all online identities are inherently fictional because they are selective – filtered and with context. It would be impossible to attain the shock value of an Apple tattoo online, as there is an inherent untrustworthiness in an online identity.

Is avatar advertisement misrepresenting and dehumanizing. Yes. AS MARKETERS, should we hold ourselves to a higher ethical standard? Yes. But if we're talking about a one-to-many online relationship on a blog or on Twitter, then the persona in the avatar is just as fictional as any other endorser we'd encounter in life.

That means I agree with Scott: the same common sense applies, even if each person is not uniformly armed with it.

When a character in a television show prominently uses a brand, we assume it could be because that placement was a paid consideration. Race car drivers are obviously being paid to wear logos or appear in commercials.

Yet, is it always assumed and obvious? Scott says it's a matter of common sense, but I'm sure many people see those advertisements as completely organic, which is exactly the intent of their placement. Similarly, if I saw an Apple tattoo I'd assume it was organic support, not paid support.

In both the former cases, a fictional character is doing the advertising – yes, even the race car driver's public persona is partial fiction. You'd be hard-pressed to name a paid visual endorsement in real life that isn't at least partially fictional due to a personally being filtered through a lens of a PR person or media coverage.

The Apple endorsement is personal, which is why it seems so shocking. We're encountering it without any filter or context. Person-to-person.

Because of that, what I feel like the two of you are arguing here is digital authenticity. Does Twitter represent a personal relationship or a fictional one? Because, if it's personal, then endorsement would be shocking, and David would win the argument.

While the three of us likely all take a personal approach to Twitter, I would posit that all online identities are inherently fictional because they are selective – filtered and with context. It would be impossible to attain the shock value of an Apple tattoo online, as there is an inherent untrustworthiness in an online identity.

Is avatar advertisement misrepresenting and dehumanizing. Yes. AS MARKETERS, should we hold ourselves to a higher ethical standard? Yes. But if we're talking about a one-to-many online relationship on a blog or on Twitter, then the persona in the avatar is just as fictional as any other endorser we'd encounter in life.

That means I agree with Scott: the same common sense applies, even if each person is not uniformly armed with it.

When a character in a television show prominently uses a brand, we assume it could be because that placement was a paid consideration. Race car drivers are obviously being paid to wear logos or appear in commercials.

Yet, is it always assumed and obvious? Scott says it's a matter of common sense, but I'm sure many people see those advertisements as completely organic, which is exactly the intent of their placement. Similarly, if I saw an Apple tattoo I'd assume it was organic support, not paid support.

In both the former cases, a fictional character is doing the advertising – yes, even the race car driver's public persona is partial fiction. You'd be hard-pressed to name a paid visual endorsement in real life that isn't at least partially fictional due to a personally being filtered through a lens of a PR person or media coverage.

The Apple endorsement is personal, which is why it seems so shocking. We're encountering it without any filter or context. Person-to-person.

Because of that, what I feel like the two of you are arguing here is digital authenticity. Does Twitter represent a personal relationship or a fictional one? Because, if it's personal, then endorsement would be shocking, and David would win the argument.

While the three of us likely all take a personal approach to Twitter, I would posit that all online identities are inherently fictional because they are selective – filtered and with context. It would be impossible to attain the shock value of an Apple tattoo online, as there is an inherent untrustworthiness in an online identity.

Is avatar advertisement misrepresenting and dehumanizing. Yes. AS MARKETERS, should we hold ourselves to a higher ethical standard? Yes. But if we're talking about a one-to-many online relationship on a blog or on Twitter, then the persona in the avatar is just as fictional as any other endorser we'd encounter in life.

That means I agree with Scott: the same common sense applies, even if each person is not uniformly armed with it.

I think that's the issue I have. If you're a big fan of a brand, or even just want to look cool…then logo away. I think it crosses the line when a user is being paid to sport the logo. It's untruthful and misleading. On twitter, I don't think there's any way to legitimately disclose this arrangement and therefore it shouldn't be done.

I think that's the issue I have. If you're a big fan of a brand, or even just want to look cool…then logo away. I think it crosses the line when a user is being paid to sport the logo. It's untruthful and misleading. On twitter, I don't think there's any way to legitimately disclose this arrangement and therefore it shouldn't be done.

You don't have to turn to Nascar races to find people are who happy serving as human billboards. In person people brand themselves all of the time with logos, whether they be from designers, sports teams, or actual brands. Sometimes it's a show of support, others a show of irony. Either way, it promotes brand awareness, it doesn't come with a disclosure, and it's so common that we hardly notice it.

Why should an avatar on a social network be any different?

The Social Network upper-class of digital natives love to pretend that networks are sacrosanct and shouldn't be perverted by this sort of casual marketing presence, but SM is just a digital representation of our physical selves. If you'd wear an Apple shirt in real life, why not emblazon your avatar with a logo in a show of support? If you won't go anywhere without your Uggs, why not make your avatar equally as Uggy?

Personally, I try to get away with living my life as unbranded as I possibly can, and I'm sure my avatar will stay the same. But, I've long since given up sneering at people in Baby Phat jackets or Phillies t-shirts. For people not as OCD about their personal brand image as me (or David, I suspect), providing a tacit sartorial endorsement is a way of feeling included in a movement with other people – whether that's the movement of an obscure rock band or an AIDS ribbon.

What makes it any different if it's a Gap logo or a green avatar in support of Iran?