11–20 of 67 posts
DNS exists and at least it has a dispute resolution process; let's use it. (see Laconica)
This issue isn't unique to Twitter. Anyone who's building a site today is going to have these issues. We need some clever solutions here.
This issue isn't unique to Twitter. Anyone who's building a site today is going to have these issues. We need some clever solutions here.
So someone is complaining that they registered a bunch of names they thought would be monetarily valuable at a later date, and is complaining when the company that provides the service is disallowing him from doing it? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me. I have no sorrow for domain squatters, and that extends to people who grabbed Facebook app names, Twitter names, whatever. Twitter isn't like the DNS…
Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should totally benefit from it.
18 months ago, most people did not know about Twitter and they could not see it being useful to anyone. Steve did. You should go back to his blog entries at TechQuilaShots. He was sharing ideas on how businesses could take advantage of Twitter. Only a few read his blog and a fewer followed his advices. So he did it. Now they want to take that away from him. Not cool.
So someone is complaining that they registered a bunch of names they thought would be monetarily valuable at a later date, and is complaining when the company that provides the service is disallowing him from doing it? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me. I have no sorrow for domain squatters, and that extends to people who grabbed Facebook app names, Twitter names, whatever. Twitter isn't like the DNS…
I'm siding with geius on this one. To the extent that no money changed hands and Steve wasn't paying them to use the celtics usename, then I think Twitter can do whatever they want whenever they want. It may not be good karma for them to take the names without warning, but Twitter's job is to pay the bills and keep the lights on, not turn down good exposure (and perhaps some coin) to keep one guy happy who didn't hav…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm siding with geius on this one. To the extent that no money changed hands and Steve wasn't paying them to use the celtics usename, then I think Twitter can do whatever they want whenever they want. It may not be good karma for them to take the names without warning, but Twitter's job is to pay the bills and keep the lights on, not turn down good exposure (and perhaps some coin) to keep one guy happy who didn't hav…
Define "right to a name". (I've actually got some potential thoughts, but I'd like to not poison the well.)
The terms of service said they could come and take it, and Steve's not paying them any money for exclusive use of the name, so from that standpoint I don't feel he has a right to use the username any more than the Boston Celtics do. It's Twitter - who owns the service - that I think has the right to do what they please.
I'm not saying that I agree with how they handled it and I can see why Steve is pissed off, but I don't think they have any obligation to let Steve keep the username.
This issue isn't unique to Twitter. Anyone who's building a site today is going to have these issues. We need some clever solutions here.
What if they allowed duplicate names? Navigating to twitter.com/username would then display everyone with that name (like how Wikipedia handles it). The chances that you are following more than one person with the same name is pretty slim. If that does happen, then you pick which one gets your @ replies.
This issue isn't unique to Twitter. Anyone who's building a site today is going to have these issues. We need some clever solutions here.
If you don't like what Twitter is doing, leave. Twitter is a business, just like any other, ultimately, they own all the usernames, you're just using them, if they see a better way to assign a username, why would they not chose it? You're getting value out of the twitter network, and twitter has every right to do what makes more sense to them. If users don't like the decisions Twitter is making, they will leave and t…
StockTwits just raised nearly $1 million — their business is based off Twitter. Definitely one of their assumptions is that they’ll be keeping their username ‘StockTwits’.
Yes because squatting on a name like 'celtics' is somehow similar to using a unique username that ties to the user/company who also owns the domain name that is the title of a service that they are providing?
Sorry, I just don't see the connection there. Just because the people at Twitter decided your username had better uses doesn't mean that they are going to arbitrarily start cutting off other usernames.
Of course, then he brings up the "...but others are doing it too!" argument as if that tactic has ever worked in defending someone's viewpoint...well...ever.
I apologize if I'm coming off harsh, I just really don't see why this situation is surprising or somehow wrong.