81–90 of 102 posts
I see lots of people defending this. What if the owner doesn't post, but reads and uses DM? What if they post the delete their posts when it gets old? Like Michael Burry?
[flagged]
edit: tempted to clarify with /s but that would defeat the point of the response..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
But why should they have to use another handle just because someone wants it? Your handle is your online identity, and some people have built up theirs around it. Not everyone just chooses random strings for each service they use. Of course, I'm only saying this for active accounts. If you've been inactive for a reasonable amount of time, sure, let someone else have it.
Twitter has 2 levels of verification tag that's what usually verifies users, as there are so many impersonators. Even when twitter removes the verification (like they did for iran's foreign minister) , people use other channels to point to the real one.
It's how it works.
That is what I like about NOSTR. Your keys == Your account It is about time to stop having identities tied to companies.
I like the idea of nostr, I don't like the experience of nostr.
Other than that it is really great to build apps on top of NOSTR relays. My personal goal is to turn each user phone on a relay so we can walk with our own data on the pockets while still sharing with other relays as we wish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
@dang, how much to buy the user account "seydor", I need it for uh, reasons. edit: tempted to clarify with /s but that would defeat the point of the response..
I think it’s fine. Someone squatted one of my names on GitHub. No activity. Nothing. I emailed them because I wanted it. They gave it to me. I’m not going to be called improbable_coaster_2740 just because some fool decided it was a good use of his time to register a bunch of usernames.
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 you don't pay for a domain name you could lose it too. If I signed up for a free social media account hosted by another company and neither logged in or posted on it for a year then it got autodeleted for inactivity, I wouldn't really feel I had a particularly strong claim to it.
Domain names are usually treated as leased assets with a clear renewal cycle. Social media handles, on the other hand, often feel more like identity markers, especially when someone has used them for years.
When platforms reclaim dormant handles and then auction them, the model shifts from “resource management” to “asset monetization”. That changes user expectations quite a bit.
If a platform wants to recycle dormant identifiers, a transparent policy with predictable timelines and clear notices would probably feel more legitimate than quietly moving them into a marketplace.
I think that dormant accounts, where someone has not logged in for, say, 2 years, does not post, does not engage, should be repurposed - with given notice. It's kind of the equivalent of cybersquatting. Also, technically, a platform is within its right to do this. I think the better course of action is to utilize the account. Gmail has made this clear that if you don't log into an account after some time they will re…
I disagree, there are security implications if an account was previously linked to someone but then it’s repurposed allowing for fraudulent social engineering use to occur. It’s like as if Gmail gave your email to someone else after a while. They don’t because it’s a bad idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, there are security implications if an account was previously linked to someone but then it’s repurposed allowing for fraudulent social engineering use to occur. It’s like as if Gmail gave your email to someone else after a while. They don’t because it’s a bad idea.
both of you used gmail as an example to make opposing arguments
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, there are security implications if an account was previously linked to someone but then it’s repurposed allowing for fraudulent social engineering use to occur. It’s like as if Gmail gave your email to someone else after a while. They don’t because it’s a bad idea.
both of you used gmail as an example to make opposing arguments
But at least one poster says they're reusing addresses.