21–30 of 112 posts
> The exact circumstances surrounding the changes aren't clear. The exact circumstances are that they likely paid them a shitload of money.
I am not saying it stolen, merely asking if there is any proof it was bought. And no, “oCcAms rAZOr” is not evidence.
> The exact circumstances surrounding the changes aren't clear. The exact circumstances are that they likely paid them a shitload of money.
You base this off what? We really live in a post truth society where innocent asks for evidence supporting a claim are discouraged. I am not saying it stolen, merely asking if there is any proof it was bought. And no, “oCcAms rAZOr” is not evidence.
People using Instagram usernames as identity is so insane to me. Why does everyone love sharecropping?
> The exact circumstances surrounding the changes aren't clear. The exact circumstances are that they likely paid them a shitload of money.
"lost" is incredibly misleading, as there's no evidence they weren't paid to hand the handles over.
is there evidence that happened (there was payment for handle)?
The odds of X forcefully handing a handle over from a user to Meta for an AI product seem lower to me than them being paid for it, but that's not based on anything either.
Using "lost" in a headline is therefore misleading, as it implies a lack of consent where there is no actual knowledge that is the case.
> The exact circumstances surrounding the changes aren't clear. The exact circumstances are that they likely paid them a shitload of money.
You base this off what? We really live in a post truth society where innocent asks for evidence supporting a claim are discouraged. I am not saying it stolen, merely asking if there is any proof it was bought. And no, “oCcAms rAZOr” is not evidence.
Since when was the default to assume malicious activity and victimization, and then to ask for proof otherwise? Obviously we should do the reverse. There should be evidence of theft rather than assuming theft as the baseline.
For starters, if the band's handles were taken non-consensually, then the least we should expect is a public complaint from said band.
This is doubly true in a world where social media handles are routinely bought, sold, and traded. And triply true where the supposed victim of this crime is an incredibly popular group of people with an extremely massive platform, and it's 99.9999% likely that Meta knew this going in.
> The exact circumstances surrounding the changes aren't clear. The exact circumstances are that they likely paid them a shitload of money.
You base this off what? We really live in a post truth society where innocent asks for evidence supporting a claim are discouraged. I am not saying it stolen, merely asking if there is any proof it was bought. And no, “oCcAms rAZOr” is not evidence.
The problem is, it’s Meta. And like the scorpion said to the frog, “I can’t help it. It’s my nature.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You base this off what? We really live in a post truth society where innocent asks for evidence supporting a claim are discouraged. I am not saying it stolen, merely asking if there is any proof it was bought. And no, “oCcAms rAZOr” is not evidence.
Knowing that people are willing to exchange social handles for money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is there evidence that happened (there was payment for handle)?
No, there's no evidence either way. Both are equally possible. The odds of X forcefully handing a handle over from a user to Meta for an AI product seem lower to me than them being paid for it, but that's not based on anything either. Using "lost" in a headline is therefore misleading, as it implies a lack of consent where there is no actual knowledge that is the case.