[flagged]
X is selling existing users' handles
21–30 of 102 posts
Re: X is selling existing users' handles
#22It's a drag for sure, but, what were you doing/going to do with it? You almost never posted, and when you did, it didn't contribute to anything. If I owned a site like X, I'd want some way to reclaim user names in cases like these. I don't doubt X is sneaky or gross about it, but it's a reasonable need too. Putting the name on a marketplace is weird. I'd simply free it up if it was my platform, and send a note to the…
> but it's a reasonable need too.
> Putting the name on a marketplace is weird.
These two ideas are in direct contradiction to each other.
Why would a site care about vanity handles if not to monetize them ?
Re: X is selling existing users' handles
#23Your posts: https://twiiit.com/hac 2020 - "Ping" 2021 - "Pong" 2023 - "Boop." 2023 - "Bleep" 2023 - "will inventing new technology be the solution to our problems?"
I can't believe X would take back the account of such an active and valued member of the community who is clearly not squatting on the name or anything.
Re: X is selling existing users' handles
#24I think people sitting on a handle for 10-20 years without active use is annoying, so I'm fine with them taking them from dormant accounts. I think the selling is sketchy though.
It's less sketchy than third party underground sites, though, which is the alternative.
Re: X is selling existing users' handles
#25Dormant account reuse should be ok, assuming proper notice is given. Though 30 days is far too strict. A life event could leave someone offline for a month. Selling I have an issue with, especially the arbitrary selling of “rare” handles. This leaves normal users stuck with junk names and encourages Twitter to be even more of a place for corporate communication above all else.
You're gonna be really unhappy with how domain name registrars work, then.
Re: X is selling existing users' handles
#26Dormant account reuse should be ok, assuming proper notice is given. Though 30 days is far too strict. A life event could leave someone offline for a month. Selling I have an issue with, especially the arbitrary selling of “rare” handles. This leaves normal users stuck with junk names and encourages Twitter to be even more of a place for corporate communication above all else.
I'd imagine the 30 days just the TOS, if they sell a username that has been active (posting, replying) in the past 6 months then it'd be a big deal for sure. It's not clear when OP last used his account but I'd imagine the people doing auctions look to see if they post or interact at all, not just login once in a while. X should probably clarify this.
> if they sell a username that has been active (posting, replying) in the past 6 months then it'd be a big deal for sure.
What about this scenario:
If you register a domain name, a bot registers a related handle/name/brand pretty quick if you do not.
So, you register a twitter handle to preserve your brand identity right after registering a new domain.
You don't check it for 6 months.
Is it OK for Twitter to sell that handle?
Re: X is selling existing users' handles
#27Your posts: https://twiiit.com/hac 2020 - "Ping" 2021 - "Pong" 2023 - "Boop." 2023 - "Bleep" 2023 - "will inventing new technology be the solution to our problems?"
I can't believe X would take back the account of such an active and valued member of the community who is clearly not squatting on the name or anything.
Squatting is something you do to someone else's property. It implies that there is someone else out there with a more legitimate claim to the @hac handle, which there isn't. It's not as if we're talking about @google or something.
If I stole your house and sold it because I didn't think you were using it properly, that would clearly be illegitimate. I don't see why the rules change when we talk about someone's twitter handle. Nobody needs @hac. X merely wants it and has the power to take it.
Re: X is selling existing users' handles
#28https://handles.x.com/
who wants to screenshot what's on the other side because I sure as hell am not paying to see it!
Re: X is selling existing users' handles
#29I was an early adopter on many platforms, and used the same three letter handle on each. I've had the same thing happen to me, even with an account that was being actively used. There's nothing that you can do about it. It's their platform and they can grab your handle if they want it.
Re: X is selling existing users' handles
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't believe X would take back the account of such an active and valued member of the community who is clearly not squatting on the name or anything.
Squatting is something you do to someone else's property. It implies that there is someone else out there with a more legitimate claim to the @hac handle, which there isn't. It's not as if we're talking about @google or something. If I stole your house and sold it because I didn't think you were using it properly, that would clearly be illegitimate. I don't see why the rules change when we talk about someone's twitte…
But you don't own it. X does. It's their service, they are free to apportion handles as they see fit. It is nothing like a house where you have an actual ownership claim through the deed.