Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Prince Harry and Meghan took my Instagram name

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 135 posts

Re: Prince Harry and Meghan took my Instagram name

#71

Post by thaumasiotes »

notahacker wrote: post #70
thaumasiotes wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this particular case, I'm guessing -- based on the URLs -- that in order to have the Instagram username "sussexroyal", it's also necessary to be located at www.instagram.com/sussexroyal . This is a design mistake. The URL identifier does not need to be the public-facing identifier, and it shouldn't be. You can have the Duke of Sussex as sussexroyal at www.instagram.com/y6llflk9 and the guy in Sussex who roots for…

But instagram.com/sussexroyal is a much more memorable URL than instagram.com/y2q9g6uo, and being able to find someone from remembering their handle is much better than remembering the handle and then wondering which of the multiple people called sussexroyal you're after when the search results come through Needless to say, the most prominent and memorable identifier being non-unique has all sorts of uses for trolls…

> Needless to say, the most prominent and memorable identifier being non-unique has all sorts of uses for trolls and spambots too.

Sure, but it has more uses for people who would like to have a reasonable name. This is just the "knives can be used to kill people" argument.

Re: Prince Harry and Meghan took my Instagram name

#72

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #67
eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t the same issue apply to email addresses or domain names? At some point there needs to be a unique identifier or ID to locate the right destination. How else could this be accomplished, especially when we are talking about URL structures that need to be somewhat short in length?

In this particular case, I'm guessing -- based on the URLs -- that in order to have the Instagram username "sussexroyal", it's also necessary to be located at www.instagram.com/sussexroyal . This is a design mistake. The URL identifier does not need to be the public-facing identifier, and it shouldn't be. You can have the Duke of Sussex as sussexroyal at www.instagram.com/y6llflk9 and the guy in Sussex who roots for…

You really think that? Why do we even have domain names then? Why don't we tell everyone to remember IP addresses?

Re: Prince Harry and Meghan took my Instagram name

#73

Post by will_brown »

zamadatix wrote: post #65
eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the absence of posts indicate inactivity? He said in the article he uses it to like posts, but not create content. That doesn't sound inactive to me. In fact, Instagram basically encourages this type of account use. Any time you try to browse the site they try to get you to sign-up, even if you have zero intention of making your own posts. It sounds like the guy would have given the account name over either…

"would you give up your account name" "No" "We have changed your account name" Is 10x worse than "we have changed your account name". If you're going to do something and there aren't any alternatives don't act like it's a question unless an extremely high ratio will say yes.

>"would you give up your account name"

Sure will you give up all my data, metadata and shadow profile? Oh and don’t forget to forward me all funds you have made selling my data and or serving me Ads to date.

I’d really like ICANN to take away the Instagram domain and reassign it to some royals at their request while we are at it.

Re: Prince Harry and Meghan took my Instagram name

#74

Post by notahacker »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #71
notahacker wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But instagram.com/sussexroyal is a much more memorable URL than instagram.com/y2q9g6uo, and being able to find someone from remembering their handle is much better than remembering the handle and then wondering which of the multiple people called sussexroyal you're after when the search results come through Needless to say, the most prominent and memorable identifier being non-unique has all sorts of uses for trolls…

> Needless to say, the most prominent and memorable identifier being non-unique has all sorts of uses for trolls and spambots too. Sure, but it has more uses for people who would like to have a reasonable name. This is just the "knives can be used to kill people" argument.

The option for a reasonable name still exists (and site owners don't have to arbitrarily confiscate it to give it to more PR-worthy people), it just might be a slightly longer reasonable name with a disambiguator built into it instead of a common first name or cool dictionary word, and you get a reasonable URL as a bonus. I'd probably rather be found at instagram.com/johnsmithspringfield than instagram.com/jh9fjhfgjhg (or 'search for "John Smith" and scroll through 300 entries') anyway.

Of course with unique identifiers you probably don't get to call yourself elonmusk, POTUS or amazon

Re: Prince Harry and Meghan took my Instagram name

#75

Post by notatoad »

kalleboo wrote: post #51
notatoad wrote: post #33

The only surprising thing here is that it's not even that good of a name. I understand platforms yanking the handles of established brands and registered trademarks, but is "sussexroyal" really as good an Instagram name as Harry and Meghan can come up with, and worth the negative pr of stories like this one?

Is this even that negative PR? They're probably going to get more people going "oooh Prince Harry and Meghan are on Instagram I should follow them" than being outraged and quitting

I guess what I'm saying is if they aren't worried about the optics of it or don't consider this bad PR, why not take a better name?

Re: Prince Harry and Meghan took my Instagram name

#76

Post by benatkin »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #48
benatkin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word apple has other meanings besides Apple, Inc, but it is a registered trademark in the USA. Since instagram is based in the USA, it's pretty clear that Apple, Inc is the rightful owner . Whether or not they should have a trademark on such a common word is a separate question.

This is absolutely not clear. How does someone who has @apple and posts pictures of apples infringe on Apple, Inc's trademark?

I didn't say that they would be infringing on Apple, Inc's trademark and I don't think that. I only think that in disputed ownership, based on instagram's purpose of providing a communication platform, the rightful owner would be Apple, Inc, not someone who happened to register it first. And they have a way of determining who the rightful owner, to them, is. Clearly the definition of rightful owner isn't universal, nor is it 100% consistently determined, but a process can be made for determining it. Here's an example: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/...

Re: Prince Harry and Meghan took my Instagram name

#77

Post by sbr464 »

Somewhat related, I find it unusual that a lot of SaaS companies get you to choose a subdomain during the trial signup process. Sometimes I just want to try out a service and kind of feel bad squatting on a somewhat premium subdomain so easily. I’m launching a product soon and it made me think about different ways to handle this, especially wrt to shorter (more premium), and trademark/brand related names.

Re: Prince Harry and Meghan took my Instagram name

#78

Post by benatkin »

gbear605 wrote: post #49
benatkin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word apple has other meanings besides Apple, Inc, but it is a registered trademark in the USA. Since instagram is based in the USA, it's pretty clear that Apple, Inc is the rightful owner . Whether or not they should have a trademark on such a common word is a separate question.

It’s only a registered trademark for their business field. For example Apple Records also has a registered trademark on Apple in the USA. So by your measure they’re just as valid a rightful owner.

It's pretty obvious what the most well-known trademark is. I don't think Google would be giving ibm.dev to the International Brotherhood of Magicians [1]. Here's an example as it pertains to domain names [2]. Of course Instagram is different and there's much less oversight, but they would probably do something similar, where they first verify a trademark, and if multiple parties have the same word in the trademark, determine which.

"2.5 Does putting my trademark in the Clearinghouse mean that I automatically get my trademark as a domain name in all new gTLDs?

No. The Clearinghouse verifies and maintains information from many jurisdictions and classes of goods or services, and many parties may have legitimate rights in the same trademark. Allocation of domain names in a particular TLD occurs according to the registry policies for that TLD."

1: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:9gr...

2: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/...

Re: Prince Harry and Meghan took my Instagram name

#80

Post by drefanzor »

This isn't uncommon. Twitter is another prime example. Their "rules" state that you cannot (since 2009) make a three letter handle in your username, and yet @AOC was able to acquire hers. I don't have any problem with this but it does bring up the fact that there seems to be certain people able to skirt the rules because of "who they are". What about famous people getting verified on Twitter when the verification program was supposedly halted? It goes on and on, but the fact of the matter is "money talks".
Post reply on HN