Well, no, I simply feel it is courteous to provide a response to clarify my position and acknowledge another's post. Of course, your specious assertions also demanded a response, lest they be construed as the last word on the subject.
Of course, you appear to feel differently about proper conduct, assuming an air of insulting superiority to reinforce insubstantial contentions and give the impression yours is the final word on the matter. You should be apprised of the fact that this behavior does nothing but portray you as a pompous, self-impressed twit.
It has apparently escaped your notice that you argued giving a signed piece of paper to someone essentially transferred your right of identity to them, so that they might "... do anything I could do."
In the case of the Twitter accounts, the authors of the tweets usurped the identity of the actual account holder. They did not state, "This post was made by Comic Con on the behalf of so-and-so." They impersonated the account holder.
While you may have a point regarding the act of giving such permission being an indictment against one's judiciousness, that has no immediate bearing on whether one has such a reputation in the first place.
Obviously, significance is in the eye of the reputation holder, potentially to be determined by the court.
The real point is making this an expensive enough episode for the perpetrators to discourage such behavior in the future. By most accounts, it came as a surprise to the victims that postings had been made without their approval. This creates considerable question as to whether the perps made a good-faith effort to inform them of what they were agreeing to.
Garnering misplaced trust may not be actionable in and of itself, but deceit to gain and or abuse of that trust can be. A material question, then, is whether the attendees so exploited actually had a "100x cooler" experience or whether they felt betrayed, ripped-off and demeaned. Evidence suggests the latter and actionable misconduct by Comic Con.
Astroturfing is reprehensible enough without hijacking peoples' identities to do it.
Harm to one's reputation or public image is a demonstrable and prosecutable harm. If one were to enjoy a reputation as a sensible and judicious person, some of the comments I've seen, which were purported to be the postings in question, would do harm to it.
Your comment does draw further attention to the potential harm that might befall the readers of such postings, who would have been wilfully mislead.
In ghost writing the individual for whom the writing service is provided has knowledge of the product and editorial rights over it. The people whose identities were abused, here, had no such opportunity to control what was published under their names.
To suggest that I "cheapen the meaning of everything" is offensive, cheap, and wrong. It is you who cheapen the milieu of rational discourse at Slashdot. You should be ashamed.
We're here to give you a computer, not a religion. - attributed to Bob Pariseau, at the introduction of the Amiga