Live data from Hacker News

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

syzito.xyz

211–220 of 241 posts

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

#211
I just can’t feel bad for people who do this, when this happens to them.

He has for 16 years effectively helped push the open web further away by investing so much time into Twitter.

These proprietary platforms(Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, etc) should not be supported at all - Time and time again have we warned this is exactly what will happen.

And by investing in these platforms, you are essentially supporting the silencing of dissenting opinions, making sure only the supporting voices of global capitalism are heard.

Remember: Twitter is the McDonald’s of the internet.

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

#212
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What the point to have self-hosted, self-owned account if popular services ignore it?

You can own land that no one wants, you can own anything that no one wants.

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

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about domain names? I have a really nice .app site and fear this every time I renew it. (For those who don't know: .app is owned by Google)

This cannot happen with domains. If you were to drop the domain, they could potentially reserve it for themselves, but as long as you're not breaking laws and pay for renewals, the domain is yours.

Are there actually legal restrictions to this? Does anything prevent a registrar from increasing the domain renewal price from $12 to $12,000 which effectively prices out everyone?

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

#214
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a better alternative? Is there one?

If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Ultimately, you're going to depend on other parties behaving in a common interest, whether that's your email provider, your ISP, your registrar, anyone accepting your ip address announcements...

And then you have an endless stream of spam, people knocking on ports, etc. Better to keep things airgapped. All one really needs in life is a cyberdeck utility running on freertos in an MCU. Then you are truly captain of your own ship and own your world of compute.

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

#215

There is no such thing as true digital ownership for things built on anyone else’s platform. If you want to truly own something you need to use open protocols - like websites and bespoke software. If you build on someone’s API, or rely on “owning” a Twitter account which you literally have zero right to and is at the whim of the platform’s owner, don’t be shocked when it’s taken from you. Of course, you can always us…

What about domain names? I have a really nice .app site and fear this every time I renew it. (For those who don't know: .app is owned by Google)

Squarespace owns it now. Google is leaving the domain registrar business.

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

#216

On the one hand, it's unsurprising that platforms would do this, users sign up for TOS with terrible policies and realize too late that they're the product. Too, a handle like '@music' was also an opportunistic bet on hub status of one's own. On the other hand, the sense of arrogance and entitlement on display here marks an impressive new nadir in fuck-you capitalism. Contractual arguments are sort of meaningless sin…

On top of all those ToS criticisms, the terms can be changed unilaterally at any time. So the terms into which you enter a relationship aren't the terms which will govern that relationship.

This is ... becoming untenable.

(The more so as ToS often have strong legal sanction, or as Cory Doctorow calls it, "criminal contempt of business model".)

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

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am using a rhetorical technique to point to the traditional economic system to contrast it with the crypto system, and in this way crypto is at least equally bad (if not (much!) better). That technique is for observers of the thread. Unfortunately, if you have a problem with “rich get richer”, I believe you are arguing against fundamental requirement of technological improvement. It takes patience to do anything of…

> It takes patience to do anything of value. Anything. Learning a skill, mastering a job, earning the trust of your peers, becoming a leader I don't have a problem with "the hard working get richer", as in your examples. I have a problem with the way crypto would reward people for simply owning it as they did nothing.

It sounds like you have a problem with property in general. If I bought equities, or bonds, or a house, and sat on them for years, I would be rewarded for “doing nothing”. I took risk and was rewarded.

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

#218
post #45
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

[dead]

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

#219
One of the features of the late Google+ I continue to find intriguing was that account identities were not based on any semantic terms, but rather on a nineteen- or twenty-digit numeric string, apparently randomly assigned and not in any determinable sequential order. Descriptive account handles were effectively aliases assigned to these, and yes, multiple accounts could share the same alias, as both my primary "Edward Morbius" and secondary "The Real Slim Shady" accounts demonstrated.[1]

Eventually, Google hit on the idea of offering "vanity URLs" to members, with the catch that you had to provide a phone number in order to get one. I demurred on that basis, but discovered when the service was discontinued that one side-effect was that posts referenced by those vanity URLs weren't archived by the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine ... and that there was no viable way of mapping from the vanity name to the canonical numerical ID. People who'd elected to use those IDs were doubly screwed in the cancellation as their content couldn't be archived, even if they otherwise wanted it to be.

Random numeric identifiers were also a characteristic of MCIMail back in the day, if memory serves. Vint Cerf worked for MCI before moving to Google, and I wonder whether or not he had any influence in either system's account identifier policies.

This whole story-arch of Twitter's enmuskification would have been mooted had a similar architectural decision been made a decade and a half ago. I'd also strongly recommend any future account-based systems consider this model as well.

________________________________

Notes:

1. I created TRSS after getting locked out of my principle account, in a fit of pique. Given that I was already pseudonymous, why not emphasize the point, particularly when trying to reconnect. The fact that the new account pretty rapidly reestablished relations with my principle prior contacts was ... interesting. How much of that was algorithmic, how much social function, and what that has to say about both impersonation and reestablishing identity strikes me as interesting.

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

#220
post #4

i’m not surprised this happened. with @x, it sort-of makes sense. but to randomly pull handles the company wants like this is a bit beyond the pale of fostering a friendly community.

> fostering a friendly community

What about _any_ of Naughty Ol' Mr Car's actions with Twitter would make you think that this is something he's at all interested in?

Post reply on HN