Last I checked usernames aren't a public good. You're part of a social network and they get to set the policy.
Sure, you can claim it was a dick move, and maybe it is (although why is a handle so valuable? "muse instagram" now links to the @museband and their followers were transferred). This is just some phony outrage.
It's also ironic that the overlap of people that find this offensive but were fine with social media censorship since "it's a private company" is > 0%
> Last I checked usernames aren't a public good. You're part of a social network and they get to set the policy.
I'd count this as "strong-armed into this".
The giants want all the benefits of being public spaces with none of the responsibilities. To use their (US) constitutional right to free speech to sell any ad they want, while using their power (as a private corporation) to ban (or algorithmically censor) unwanted speech. To decide what counts as a "legitimate" name. And if they can manage it, to be so important its use is defacto mandatory, without democratic oversight.
Actual title of the article: "Muse Give Up Their Social Media Handle to AI in Ironic Twist"
They probably even got compensated.
It'd be "stolen" only if Muse (the band) didn't agree to this, or were strong-armed into this.
Last I checked usernames aren't a public good. You're part of a social network and they get to set the policy.
Sure, you can claim it was a dick move, and maybe it is (although why is a handle so valuable? "muse instagram" now links to the @museband and their followers were transferred). This is just some phony outrage.
It's also ironic that the overlap of people that find this offensive but were fine with social media censorship since "it's a private company" is > 0%
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=muse%20instagram
> Last I checked usernames aren't a public good. You're part of a social network and they get to set the policy.
I'd count this as "strong-armed into this".
The giants want all the benefits of being public spaces with none of the responsibilities. To use their (US) constitutional right to free speech to sell any ad they want, while using their power (as a private corporation) to ban (or algorithmically censor) unwanted speech. To decide what counts as a "legitimate" name. And if they can manage it, to be so important its use is defacto mandatory, without democratic oversight.
I am not a fan of this.
I don't know why you're being downvoted—social media handles aren't, say, domain names, or anything like that.
If I were the band, I’d do the same.
I would not want the potential fallout of the when the AI tool goes sideways. Or stupid requests. Etc
Let meta handle redirecting band questions to the proper account.
Nothing in the article about a lack of consent, only assuming. Random source. Conjecture. Random quotes from everyone except the affected parties.
Curiously low signal.
that's how it has always worked.
The namespace belongs strictly to the service operator and they shuffle names around based on any arbitrary process and it's mostly vibes driven.