With reports that Facebook will file its IPO documents this coming week (maybe as early as Wednesday), he’s now talking about that (and again, the MySpace screw-up).

Speaking of MySpace screw-ups, here’s what he said a couple weeks ago:

In his latest tweet, he mentions the phone hacking scandal, and of course copyright stealing:

The company put up a blog post titled “Don’t censor the web.”

The post calls for visitors to petition Congress, and has the following to say about PIPA and SOPA:

• PIPA & SOPA will censor the web. These bills would grant new powers to law enforcement to filter the Internet and block access to tools to get around those filters. We know from experience that these powers are on the wish list of oppressive regimes throughout the world. SOPA and PIPA also eliminate due process. They provide incentives for American companies to shut down, block access to and stop servicing U.S. and foreign websites that copyright and trademark owners allege are illegal without any due process or ability of a wrongfully targeted website to seek restitution.
• PIPA & SOPA will risk our industry’s track record of innovation and job creation.These bills would make it easier to sue law-abiding U.S. companies. Law-abiding payment processors and Internet advertising services can be subject to these private rights of action. SOPA and PIPA would also create harmful (and uncertain) technology mandates on U.S. Internet companies, as federal judges second-guess technological measures used by these companies to stop bad actors, and potentially impose inconsistent injunctions on them.
• PIPA & SOPA will not stop piracy. These bills wouldn’t get rid of pirate sites. Pirate sites would just change their addresses in order to continue their criminal activities. There are better ways to address piracy than to ask U.S. companies to censor the Internet. The foreign rogue sites are in it for the money, and we believe the best way to shut them down is to cut off their sources of funding. As a result, Google supports alternative approaches like the OPEN Act.

“Fighting online piracy is extremely important,” says Google Chief Legal Officer David Drummond. “We are investing a lot of time and money in that fight. Last year alone we acted on copyright takedown notices for more than 5 million webpages and invested more than $60 million in the fight against ads appearing on bad sites. And we think there is more that can be done here—like targeted and focused steps to cut off the money supply to foreign pirate sites. If you cut off the money flow, you cut the incentive to steal.”

Rupert Murdoch has been tweeting about Google and SOPA. He says Google’s argument about danger to the Internet is “nonsense”.

Since then, he had this to say about the Blogosphere and Congress:

Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying.

Then, CNET shared a statement from a Google spokesperson in response to the tweet:

“This is just nonsense. Last year we took down 5 million infringing Web pages from our search results and invested more than $60 million in the fight against bad ads…We fight pirates and counterfeiters every day.”

“We believe, like many other tech companies that the best way to stop [pirates] is through targeted legislation that would require ad networks and payment processors–like ours–to cut off sites dedicated to piracy or counterfeiting.”

Today, Murdoch tweeted:

It will be interesting to see how long this continues. It’s not as if Murdoch and Google bickering is anything new. It’s just that now Murdoch is using Twitter regularly, and not holding much back.

“Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying.”

This is nonsense, according to Google (and quite a few other people). CNET shares a statement from a Google spokeswoman in response to Murdoch’s accusations:

“This is just nonsense. Last year we took down 5 million infringing Web pages from our search results and invested more than $60 million in the fight against bad ads…We fight pirates and counterfeiters every day.”

“We believe, like many other tech companies that the best way to stop [pirates] is through targeted legislation that would require ad networks and payment processors–like ours–to cut off sites dedicated to piracy or counterfeiting.”

Here are a few more high profile responses to Murdoch’s tweets:

Zing. Granted, Murdoch did admit that News Corp. screwed up in every way possible with MySpace.

Murdoch has since tweeted some follow-ups regarding Google and piracy:

Within the last couple of hours or so, he has tweeted the following:

Between those, however, he made the more headline-grabbing statement:

First there was the question over whether the Murdochs should sue Twitter because the fake account actually managed to be verified albeit for only three days. But this whole verification snafu highlights a similar problem that is probably all too familiar to News Corps and Murdoch. Hollywood Reporter details the problem:

News Corp. itself is currently being sued by an individual named Julie Riggs who ran a celebrity verification service called “Celebrity Guardian Angel,” which suffered after going toe-to-toe with the giant corporation over a Johnny Depp impostor on MySpace.

Riggs had a MySpace page that verified whether celebrity accounts were real or not. Before Twitter launched its own service, Riggs was a pioneer in offering badges so celebrities could show they were who they said they were. But when she flagged a Depp poser on MySpace and the impostor complained, MySpace deleted her account. Then, MySpace introduced its own celebrity verification service, leading Riggs to sue.

Ruh-roh. Well, that’s one good reason why the Murdochs should probably just let this issue trot off into obscurity. 2011 certainly was the best year for PR for the corporation given that whole phone-hacking scandal that resulted in the complete window-shuttering of News of the World. Maybe the Murdochs should take a similar route of action and, like NofW, just shut down this story altogether so nobody else comes a-knocking about that eye-sore of a lawsuit they’re dealing with concerning the MySpace verification services.

Then again, who knows. News Corp. hasn’t really developed the reputation of shying away from controversy of, well, anything, so maybe they will sue Twitter over the fake Wendi Deng account. What do you think? Think they’ve got a case here and, if so, should they pursue it? Or should they try to make sure that 2012 is a recovery year for News Corp.’s PR? Comment below!

It was actually a verified, which is important these days to pan the real thing out from the plethora of celebrity spoof accounts. She proceeded to post fairly mundane details that you would expect from someone getting a feel for Twitter:

Now skip to today, three days later, when the veil was lifted:

Whoops! Jokes on you, Twitter. But also everybody else, as it seems legitimate news organizations fell for the ruse as well.

So how exactly did this happen that Twitter verified an account of a known public person to someone who is not in fact that known public person? Nobody knows just yet, but the BBC asked Twitter about how such a slip-up could occur with their verification process. Twitter responded, “We don’t comment on our verification process but can confirm that the @wendi_deng account was mistakenly verified for a short period of time.” Nice cryptic answer, Twitter. Further adding to the confusion, Mashable reports that News Corporation even told some media outlets that Deng’s account was the real deal. Do we even know who to believe at this point? Nope, but Twitterers taken by the decoy were quick to snark about the fake account:

Interesting, the account for Rupert Murdoch is still listed as a verified account. However he (or his account handler) hasn’t acknowledge the fake Deng account yet. The jokester did finally come clean about the fake account and posted a few acknowledgements today:

So there you have it. The short rise and fall of the fake Wendi Deng Murdoch Twitter account. In memoriam, the fallout from this hoax illuminates two very peculiar facts:

1 – Twitter’s verification process is shoddy and was obviously duped. Expect the verification process to get revamped in the near future, but in the meantime we’re all left to question whether any of those verified accounts are the real thing or not. What would the world do if that Snooki account turned out to be some bored university undergrad spoofing millions? Would the world be less fun? Or more?

2 – Whoever is behind the Wendi Deng Twitter hoax ignored a really basic rule of fake Twitter accounts: be funny! Seriously, take notes from the fake accounts of Gary Busey, Rahm Emanuel, the sun, Drunk Hulk, or even the Bronx Zoo cobra that escaped last year – be funny with that trouble you’re starting. Nothing could be more boring than trying to be normal. Spoof Twitter accounts may very well be a new artform in their very own right and I believe it’s the duty of every fake Twitter account holder to uphold the integrity of this form of expression. Make a mess!

With respect to fact #2, this account failed miserably.

While it may not be as poignant as other works–take, for instance, the Airstrike work or the kissing Bobbies–the tongue in cheek approach to such a unfortunate set of events is certainly welcomed. The “my tap’s been phoned” caption surrounding the outdoor spigot is yet another example of the subtle brilliance Banksy brings to social commentary.

I’m sure Rupert Murdoch approved, so much so, in fact, it wouldn’t be surprising if he tried to buy the wall Banksy’s latest piece showed up on. Speaking of, click the image for a better view:

Naturally, Twitter approved, as is usually the case when the name “Banksy” is mentioned:

The word “brilliant” is almost a rubber stamp response when it comes to Banksy’s work. Here’s hoping Murdoch feels the same.