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

221–230 of 241 posts

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

#221

Post by Aachen »

pessimizer wrote: post #110
Aachen wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long you've been doing something for matter a lot and it appears in lots of places. If I work somewhere for years, I can't be let go from one day to the next. If I rent a place for a decade, I can't just be thrown out with the three months' notice that are enough if I lived there for only a year. When the government updated the privacy law, even if you should never have been tracked without consent based on the 1…

> If I work somewhere for years, I can't be let go from one day to the next. What country is this? In the US this is absolutely not true. > If I rent a place for a decade, I can't just be thrown out with the three months' notice that are enough if I lived there for only a year. What country is this? In the US this is absolutely not true. By the mention of the HRC, I'm assuming the UK or Europe? Your experience of emp…

Yeah the USA is an outlier in most regards. If that's the only thing you can compare it to, I can see why you have a different idea of what's normal

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

#222

Post by jenadine »

constantly wrote: post #96
isykt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The downside risk you’re protecting against isn’t “billionaire buys company and steals your account” but is instead the much more general, “I lose access to my account,” which you will agree is a much more likely thing to happen, particularly given that it has happened on Twitter, so it’s not exactly speculative.

Exactly, when your business relies entirely on another business, you are taking a huge risk that the other businesses blocks you on a whim. There could be many reason such as randomly being flagged by some "spam" algorithms, or because add a feature that competes with your business, or they just don't like you.

That's true for anything that relies on Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, PayPal, ...

You should always have a plan: what's the risk that X company terminates our account, what would the consequences be, and what do we do in that case.

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

#224

Post by smcl »

smcl wrote: post #206
mlindner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Here is the guy in question - a non-anonymous person publicly posting child porn to Twitter who then got suspended. Then Elon Musk took a personal interest in the situation, removed the tweet and restored the account. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/27/twitter... I guess we will see if there’s any further action against the guy who tweeted it. But we are in a pretty bizarre situation now where accou…

Eh fine if the original reply is not getting reinstated I'll repost it:

--------

It’s fine in the sense that Musk owns Twitter/X and can do whatever he likes with it. It’s a bit stupid in my opinion (I don’t know if they really gain much by having @music vs @twittermusic) but there have been plenty more stupid things going on over there and the former owner is apparently a fan of Elon so it’s not really worth losing any sleep over.

The right-wing guy recently posting child porn and getting personally reinstated by Elon, for example, was another one of those “he owns it and can do what he likes” issues … but one that’s far more troubling.

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

#225

Post by MichaelZuo »

Freedom2 wrote: post #202
badwolf wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not _your_ domain unless the registrar belongs to you...

It's not your registrar unless the DNS infrastructure belongs to you.

It's not your DNS infrastructure unless ...?

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

#226

Post by drewcoo »

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…

You're talking brands. I bet @music was thinking platforms.

At first Twitter seemed to want to be a platform - something for others to build on.

Twitter clearly does not want to be a platform. It wants large corporate customers, lots of consumers, and spambots.

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

#227

Post by jeremyvaught »

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…

You are not wrong. I had many ideas, but I've been working too much (excuse, yeah) since then to do you things you suggested.

I know the danger of building on another's platform. But it still sucks.

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

#229

Post by anonymousiam »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #225
Freedom2 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not your registrar unless the DNS infrastructure belongs to you.

It's not your DNS infrastructure unless ...?

Unless you use or create an alternative root:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root

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

#230

Post by Ekaros »

tagamma wrote: post #140
andrepd wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discord kinda had that with username#1234 (4 digits). But that's being phase out.

Is there an explanation anywhere of their reason for doing the phase out? Very curious!

Because absolutely everyone employed there. Or at least those having any power were incapable of coming up with alternative solution for adding friends... As 4 numbers was too hard to remember. And only possible way was to use exact name...

Not to generate link or email or something...

Post reply on HN