Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

X is selling existing users' handles

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: X is selling existing users' handles

#51

Post by addandsubtract »

al_borland wrote: post #5

Dormant 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.

Heroku just gave me a 30 day warning for being inactive and threatened to delete all my data if I don't log in within the next 30 days.

Re: X is selling existing users' handles

#52

Post by fwn »

conception wrote: post #43
surround wrote: post #8

Your posts: https://twiiit.com/hac 2020 - "Ping" 2021 - "Pong" 2023 - "Boop." 2023 - "Bleep" 2023 - "will inventing new technology be the solution to our problems?"

People can use Twitter actively and not post. That’s not really a reason to take someone’s handle away.

The obvious reason is, of course, money.

Since rare handles can generate high prices and are returned to auction once the buyer fails to meet their obligations, Twitter has a strong incentive to increase the number of handles in its auction pool.

The relevant product manager has probably ranked existing attractive handles according to their expected mobilisation/outrage potential and started confiscating handles from the bottom of that list.

This is probably also why you won't be notified about their auction of your handle, even though you'll receive email alerts for irrelevant stuff all the time. The process looks designed to be stealthy.

Money really is the trivial Occam's razor explanation here.

Re: X is selling existing users' handles

#54

Post by mingus88 »

ronsor wrote: post #3

I 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.

You’d probably feel differently if you paid $44 Billion for the platform

Can you even imagine?

Re: X is selling existing users' handles

#55

Post by al_borland »

wrs wrote: post #25
al_borland wrote: post #5

Dormant 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.

I am very unhappy with domain name registrars for the same reasons. This is where most of my options on the topic were born.

Re: X is selling existing users' handles

#57

Post by consumer451 »

echoangle wrote: post #37
consumer451 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 tha…

If your domain is used as a brand identity, you should register it as a trademark and sue anyone who uses your brand identity as a twitter handle.

I'm thinking more like solo founder territory here. And apparently, it can be as short as 30 days?

Re: X is selling existing users' handles

#58

Post by nomel »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #42
arcfour wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

> but there's something of a grand social contract that keeps the concept of accounts on websites working

no there's not. this is complete and utter fiction. the things that keep it working are ads and normal users putting their eye in front of them, and the tos to make any silly claims of "social contracts" legally and absolutely moot.

Re: X is selling existing users' handles

#59

Post by pohl »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #16

It'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…

The vast majority of users on every forum in Internet history, from Usenet to slashdot to Twitter and beyond, have always been lurkers: people who almost exclusively read. They are essential to the vitality of the forums but they are invisible, proverbial dark matter. They do not deserve to be treated as less than. But I don’t exactly want to stop X from shooting themselves in the foot for the umteenth time.

Re: X is selling existing users' handles

#60

Post by ipaddr »

Why go through all of the effort of forcing people to signup to read something but also delete accounts after 30 days.

Is the goal to get as many users as possible and also kickoff as many users? Must be two teams competing for different goals.

Post reply on HN