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

Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away

syzito.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 241 posts

Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away

#41

Post by valianteffort »

HenryBemis wrote: post #30
internet2000 wrote: post #21

How do you spend 16 years building a username?

I assume he means "building the following by posting good content, etc. etc. for 16 years". This @music is a nice OG.. too bad they ruined it for him.

Fact of the matter is using twitter for 16 years provides no additional value to the company than someone using it for a day. No one cares how old your facebook is for example.

Platforms that wanted to provide user pages at the top level were always gonna have this issue. Nobody would want a user to name himself "support" or "customerservice".

Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away

#42

Post by constantly »

JJMcJ wrote: post #35
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #12

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.

Thought experiment: Your business is located at 420 West 69th Street. Along comes X and takes that address away from you? Would you like that?

I would not like that, but also understand how purchased real property, which has a long history dating thousands of years and a whole legal system and framework on point getting into even minutiae (Rule Against Perpetuities anyone?) is different than squatting on a generic username on someone’s new tech platform for free.

In the former case, I would usually have legal recourse, unless this is a dystopian future where Twitter can leverage eminent domain.

It’s a bad comparison.

Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away

#43

Post by rglullis »

morkalork wrote: post #31
rglullis wrote: post #23

*Never build your house on someone else's land". Episode 237.

Kind of tired of this low effort canned reply. Unless you are the literal embodiment of a state, it's always someone else's land. You're just renting it as long as you pay taxes on it. Same goes digitally. Hosting is someone else's land. Domain name registration is someone else's land. Do you say the same thing when a piracy site loses it's domain and moves yet again to another obscure tld?

> Do you say the same thing when a piracy site loses it's domain and moves yet again to another obscure tld?

Are the people on the piratebay "pissed at ICANN" when they lose a domain? No, they learned that the domain name is worthless by itself.

Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away

#44

Post by fernandopj »

JJMcJ wrote: post #32
sneak wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, Uber and Instagram and WhatsApp should not have been started, as the iOS App Store is unequivocally "someone else's land", and these services could only exist as native apps.

At this point it's all but inconceivable that those would be removed from the app servers, iOS or Android. In the early days if something had gone wrong, it might have been a different story. Though I suspect that companies with good VC connections might have side channels into Apple or Google to clear up problems. Not like little guys who can wake up one morning to discover their $20K/month business is no more.

> At this point it's all but inconceivable that those would be removed from the app servers, iOS or Android.

Not at all: one could see a future where any of those companies become Uber rivals - they're both researching autonomous vehicles. When that comes, one incident at Uber and its reason enough to expel them.

Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away

#45

Post by Aachen »

khaledh wrote: post #26

People should start referring to it as "Ex".

Or just stop referring to it, rather than continuing to give it attention

I'm on Mastodon now, there's no need for me to talk of ex-twitter. It's not a topic that interests me

Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away

#46

Post by grogenaut »

This does happen at other places when I worked at Sony we needed a social media account that was in the name of one of the characters for an alternate reality game on PlayStation Network however I'm pretty sure I remember that Sony either gave the person who had the account three grand worth of free games on PlayStation or a like 2-year unlimited games entitlement. If I recall that person was quite happy with the trade

Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away

#47

Post by extr »

mlindner wrote: post #34
smcl wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Can we not keep spreading obvious propaganda about “child porn”? It’s completely and very obviously illegal to post such things. If anyone was posting it anywhere, on or off Twitter, they’re going to prison. Twitter deletes any such material, and always has, and reports people to the police. So there aren’t any known non-anonymous people out there publicly posting child porn to Twitter that lasts longer than an insta…

Sorry, but this did happen very recently (though context is important). A huge account, Dom Lucre, posted CSAM, ostensibly as a "check out how bad this shit is", but pretty fucked up nonetheless. He got the tweets deleted but Elon himself allowed him his account back. Probably because Dom Lucre drives a lot of traffic. Pretty shameful situation all around.

Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away

#48

Post by ovao »

throwaway98797 wrote: post #38
rglullis wrote: post #23

*Never build your house on someone else's land". Episode 237.

that’s so smart a good excuse to never build anything life is risk this sucks, no doubt but this snark is so unproductive

It’s not a good excuse to not build anything, but quite a good excuse to not build on what others own in such a way that you’re entirely reliant on them. Yes, unless you’re self-hosting your product on a solar-powered server via community-owned networks, you’re going to be beholden to someone, and often that’s multiple parties. But that’s not the same as being completely beholden.

Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away

#49

Post by rglullis »

throwaway98797 wrote: post #38
rglullis wrote: post #23

*Never build your house on someone else's land". Episode 237.

that’s so smart a good excuse to never build anything life is risk this sucks, no doubt but this snark is so unproductive

> a good excuse to never build anything

... on closed platforms. Open and censorship-resistant protocols do not have have this risk, Free Software does not have this risk.

So, yes, if in 2023 you are still building things on closed platforms despite all the cautionary tales, you deserve all the snark you'll get.

Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away

#50

Post by nightski »

throwaway98797 wrote: post #38
rglullis wrote: post #23

*Never build your house on someone else's land". Episode 237.

that’s so smart a good excuse to never build anything life is risk this sucks, no doubt but this snark is so unproductive

Maybe, if you only focus on the endgame. It can be fun just for the journey. Nothing is forever, even if it is built on open platforms.
Post reply on HN