I get what you're saying, but the vast majority of people aren't going to bother going to someone's random website. I think the best you can do in this day and age is put your eggs into as many different baskets as possible, a personal website being included in that. That way, you can maximize eyes on your work and one platform suddenly losing popularity or going to crap doesn't ruin you.
I and others I know would. Granted we're not the vast majority, but my feeling is that people don't do it nowadays because they've been trained not to. If bands went back to their own sites, I'd say people would follow.
Interoperability that POSSE and ATPROTO provide will free us from the network effect. You know what saves us from the network effect? Interoperability.
Heard of POSSE? They could post on their websites and syndicate elsewhere. That way, I can access their content thru their website or RSS since I don’t have an Instagram.
LLMs are equalizing this. They use curl and Instagram has dark patterns to stop this. So if you ask a question in a specific niche, LLMs will prefer and refer to users who have their own website.
It’s the same reason popular YouTubers move to Patreon and Nebula once they get established. You never want to solely depend on a platform that can demonetize, or in this situation, take your handle.
Muse might’ve just sold it to them, TBH. I don’t see FB stripping them of it outright. This is not a small band afterall.
I'm old enough to remember when bands did everything on their own sites, complete with message boards. I _really_ miss that. Twitter is just a middle-man nobody wants when you're talking about artists.
Not disclosing how much they were paid... I see that as incredibly dishonest and scummy. Sure "an opportunity regarding the trademark" yadda yadda... empty lawyerspeak that turns me right away.
> You can’t sell, license, or purchase any account or data obtained from us or our Service, regardless of whether such data was obtained while logged-in to an Instagram account.
This includes attempts to buy, sell, or transfer any aspect of your account (including your username); solicit, collect, or use login credentials or badges of other users; or request or collect Instagram usernames, passwords, or misappropriate access tokens.
Don't be so generous in your assumptions. Meta simply stole the username because they could, and gave the old owner nothing in return. Or if they were lucky, maybe the band got a few Meta branded t-shirts, as was the case for one of the other victims from the article.
Seriously, look at that list of all the times Meta stole people's handles. Why would this time be any different?
Back in May, the iOS app "Muse" rebranded as "Allume". Their explanation was "An unexpected opportunity came up regarding the Muse name and trademarks, and as a result I'll soon be changing the name of Muse to Allumé."
I would focus less on "it's not technically a crime so the quotes should be there" part, and more on how "stolen is a good choice inside those quotes because it's a dick-move of betrayal against users and a worrying violation of norms".
Kind of like if a neighbor took a bat an "murdered" someone's dog.
Do you think they got the @muse Twitter handle through deception or force? Or again, perhaps through a voluntary economic transaction with the band? I don't really see any reason the band would be silent about this unless they were compensated.
49 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 8.0 ms ] threadhttps://www.muse.mu/
LLMs are equalizing this. They use curl and Instagram has dark patterns to stop this. So if you ask a question in a specific niche, LLMs will prefer and refer to users who have their own website.
It’s the same reason popular YouTubers move to Patreon and Nebula once they get established. You never want to solely depend on a platform that can demonetize, or in this situation, take your handle.
Muse might’ve just sold it to them, TBH. I don’t see FB stripping them of it outright. This is not a small band afterall.
https://allume.com/allume-faq/
The exact circumstances are that they likely paid them a shitload of money.
> 4.2 How You Can't Use Instagram. [...]
> You can’t sell, license, or purchase any account or data obtained from us or our Service, regardless of whether such data was obtained while logged-in to an Instagram account.
This includes attempts to buy, sell, or transfer any aspect of your account (including your username); solicit, collect, or use login credentials or badges of other users; or request or collect Instagram usernames, passwords, or misappropriate access tokens.
Seriously, look at that list of all the times Meta stole people's handles. Why would this time be any different?
Read the TOS for these services ... you don't own anything stored on their servers
The name changed happened across platforms including Twitter\X.
Meta doesn’t own X.
Is nobody reading the article? This comment section is crazy.
Everyone is reaching for pitchforks but all signs point to the band getting a huge payday.
Kind of like if a neighbor took a bat an "murdered" someone's dog.
> "it's not technically a crime so the quotes should be there"
Not only is it not a crime, but it's not even a civil breach of contract.
Get some perspective
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47856983
People using Instagram usernames as identity is so insane to me. Why does everyone love sharecropping?
Maybe, you know, Meta bought the account from the band in a voluntary transaction?
I see this has been covered already in the other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49629382