[HN Gopher] Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twit...
___________________________________________________________________
Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X
took it away
Author : rapnie
Score : 32 points
Date : 2023-08-05 22:31 UTC (29 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (syzito.xyz)
(TXT) w3m dump (syzito.xyz)
| s5300 wrote:
| [dead]
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| From another article [0]:
|
| > Vaught is mostly a Musk fan, as he's interested in Musk's
| electric cars and space developments. He said that this
| experience with X hasn't tainted his opinion of Musk or his
| relationship too much with X as a platform. He's holding out hope
| that Musk has a long-term plan for where Musk is taking X, but
| like many users, he's struggling to adjust to the rebranding.
| Vaught still refers to the platform by its original name.
|
| I love the smell of 'cult of personality'
|
| [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/x-user-super-
| pis...
| kanbara wrote:
| i'm not surprised this happened. with @x, it sort-of makes sense.
| but to randomly pull handles the company wants like this is a bit
| beyond the pale of fostering a friendly community.
| inpdx wrote:
| I think the ship has sailed far past "fostering a friendly
| community."
| zapdrive wrote:
| Something something free market.
| constantly wrote:
| I do think this is philosophically unjust, but in no way should
| anyone have built any brand on Twitter, particularly a generic
| like "music", and not expected something like this would happen.
| Twitter in particular has a long and storied history of this sort
| of thing.
|
| I think the move should have been, if one were going to start on
| Twitter, to slowly funnel the largest possible portion of their
| 11M followers to their own external site, or collaborated with I
| don't know Spotify to funnel people there for cash.
| [deleted]
| XorNot wrote:
| Keep in mind that Musk's stated ambition with X is to make it
| "the everything app".
|
| Imagine if Google started grabbing Gmail addresses it wanted for
| products.
| pard68 wrote:
| Google doesn't use @gmail though I know what you mean.
| X/Twitter should do like Google and use another designation for
| their own "handles"/services. "@" is pedestrian because
| everyone on that platform is "@something". A different pattern
| for official accounts would make sense to me. Just as Google
| doens't use "@gmail.com" for their own product emails.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| On the one hand, it's unsurprising that platforms would do this,
| users sign up for TOS with terrible policies and realize too late
| that they're the product. Too, a handle like '@music' was also an
| opportunistic bet on hub status of one's own.
|
| On the other hand, the sense of arrogance and entitlement on
| display here marks an impressive new nadir in fuck-you
| capitalism. Contractual arguments are sort of meaningless since
| most user agreements are extremely one-sided contracts of
| adhesion and the judicial establishment often rejects equitable
| arguments in favor of narrow technical ones, notwithstanding the
| vast asymmetries between user and service provider. All the
| legal, economic, and (increasingly) social incentives favor
| abusive behavior.
|
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-made-this
| corndoge wrote:
| I hope they keep doing it, maybe it will lead to users
| understanding that they do not control or own the platform.
| Unfortunately the odds of that seem slim. Even when users get fed
| up and move, they tend to just move to another proprietary
| platform, without consideration or forward thought that maybe
| it's worthwhile to use support a platform where this cannot
| happen.
| flykespice wrote:
| I hope the bank claim the money back from your account since
| you don't control or own their "platform".
| Freedom2 wrote:
| What kind of comparison is this? In most modern countries,
| banking isn't a platform in the same sense that Twitter is,
| and despite large issues over the last few decades, they are
| still regulated by the government(s) they operate in.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| Meh. I think it's fine for them to take it, but they should have
| left a link up to his new account, and publicly thanked him for
| keeping an eye on this url for so long. Maybe throw in a 16 year
| credit towards free service or something. This just seems like a
| super easy opportunity to make fans. It reminds me of how
| Microsoft messed up with Mike Rowe soft at first.
| smcl wrote:
| It's fine in the sense that Musk owns Twitter/X and can do
| whatever he likes with it. It's a bit stupid in my opinion (I
| don't know if they _really_ gain much by having @music vs
| @twittermusic) but there have been plenty more stupid things
| going on over there and the former owner is apparently a fan of
| Elon so it's not really caring about.
|
| The right-wing guy recently posting child porn and getting
| personally reinstated by Elon, for example, was another one of
| those "he owns it and can do what he likes" issues ... but one
| that's far more troubling.
| charcircuit wrote:
| As pointed out in the comments he didn't have 11M followers.
| @music was renamed to @musicfan and @twittermusic was renamed to
| @music. Both accounts kept all of their followers.
| timeon wrote:
| So it is completely ok?
| gilli wrote:
| This is why I like how Bluesky handles it, you can use your own
| domain name. So I simply got @gilli.is, no reason for anyone ever
| to take that away from me.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-05 23:00 UTC)