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

111–120 of 241 posts

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

#111

Post by bandyaboot »

maximinus_thrax wrote: post #3

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…

> Just now, Twitter/X just ripped it away. Super pissed.

Who’s going to tell him that Twitter/X is controlled by a person who’s name is Elon Musk?

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

#112

Post by sp332 »

nullfield wrote: post #81

This is the consequence of lack of self-sovereignty, along with the lack of an agreed universal naming system. That said, I’m not sure that first-come-first-wins is simultaneously fair, in such a universal environment. Nor, really, do I want it to be a “whoever can pay most gets the desirable names”, like DNS works. I don’t have a better solution right now, but acknowledge that there’s a problem with the combination/…

The Cult of the Dead Cow is launching Veilid at Def Con next weekend.

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

#113

Post by wheels »

notyourwork wrote: post #105
constantly wrote: post #6

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…

At what point should a username be expected to be qualified with conditions beyond first come first serve?

We manage non-unique names in a lot of domains. It'd be a shit-show if given names had to be unique. It'd be acceptable to have an ID in the background that helped regain specificity. (Kind of like social security numbers in the US, though those also notably are not unique.)

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

#114

Post by drcode »

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?

I hate being that guy

but if you have a self-hosted bitcoin account or ether account or use some of the naming services on those platforms, this isn't the case

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

#115

Post by zassy »

tamimio wrote: post #67

Some people think reserving a username in a platform fully owned by an entity is like reserving a domain name or like social security number..

It is absolutely bizarre how many people I know that think social media companies should be able permanently ban or suspend users for literally any reason they want with no possible recourse that simultaneously think these companies shouldn’t be able to reclaim usernames without financial compensation.

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

#116

Post by drcode »

isykt wrote: post #83
constantly wrote: post #6

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…

Wildly ahistorical take. 16 years ago nobody had “Diamond mine trust fund baby takes over Twitter and yoinks handles” on their bingo card for 16 years into the fucking future. In 2007, the housing market hadn’t crashed. George W Goddamn Bush was President. The Web seemed wide open for the taking, and scrappy startups seemed like fun places to share your life or your words or whatever. Vine was still more than half a…

every investment and activity has tail risks that you have to factor into your decision making, there are always things that can happen outside of your control

In 2007, social media was still the "Wild West" and having expectations one way or another was not a sensible, it was not something you should have gotten involved in if you wanted low tail risks

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

#117

Post by terribleperson »

nullfield wrote: post #81

This is the consequence of lack of self-sovereignty, along with the lack of an agreed universal naming system. That said, I’m not sure that first-come-first-wins is simultaneously fair, in such a universal environment. Nor, really, do I want it to be a “whoever can pay most gets the desirable names”, like DNS works. I don’t have a better solution right now, but acknowledge that there’s a problem with the combination/…

A mandatory random set of numbers at the end of every name is an approach I quite like. Not only does it directly make every name available to 10,000 people, it should reduce the demand for these desirable names in the first place since you have to share them with thousands of other people.

Platforms should also consider accommodations for trademark holders. Most have some sort of program, but it seems to be a mess. If every normal screen name has a numeric code at the end, there's room to give trademark holders a non-numeric name without having to seize a handle from someone else. The spot normally occupied by the numeric code could be replaced with an indication that that account is owned by the trademark holder or with the name of the entity that owns the trademark, to differentiate it from normal accounts and also from any accounts that might hold a similar mark in a different business.

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

#118

Post by labster »

andrepd wrote: post #106
maximinus_thrax wrote: post #3

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…

Fucking hell, I hate this word with a passion and how it's used as a cheap insult, but really "cuck" is the only thing that springs to mind. Someone takes a dump all over you but not even that makes you less eager to say panegyrics about them? Very strange.

Cuck is a good word for this case, but perhaps “addict” is better?

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

#120

Post by the-printer »

andrepd wrote: post #106
maximinus_thrax wrote: post #3

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…

Fucking hell, I hate this word with a passion and how it's used as a cheap insult, but really "cuck" is the only thing that springs to mind. Someone takes a dump all over you but not even that makes you less eager to say panegyrics about them? Very strange.

Maybe he just doesn't care that much. Inconvenienced, evidently, but to stake a personal dislike towards a human being for this seems unwarranted.
Post reply on HN