51–60 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.
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.
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.
This comment and others like it are wild to me. 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 dou…
Reminds me of Musk "stole" the @X and @e Twitter handles from users.
One of my absolute favorite apps similarly likely got a bid to change. https://allume.com/allume-faq/
> The exact circumstances surrounding the changes aren't clear. The exact circumstances are that they likely paid them a shitload of money.
> 4.2 How You Can't Use Instagram. [...]
> You can’t sell, license, or purchase any account or data obtained from us or our Service, regardless of whether such data was obtained while logged-in to an Instagram account.
> This includes attempts to buy, sell, or transfer any aspect of your account (including your username); solicit, collect, or use login credentials or badges of other users; or request or collect Instagram usernames, passwords, or misappropriate access tokens.
> The exact circumstances surrounding the changes aren't clear. The exact circumstances are that they likely paid them a shitload of money.
Seriously, look at that list of all the times Meta stole people's handles. Why would this time be any different?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment and others like it are wild to me. 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 dou…
When a company is known for being malicious by default, to the point of knowingly covering up their ongoing and extensive contributions to teen suicides, it is not unreasonable for people to expect they would steal social media accounts to suit their interests. They are pure unadulterated evil. They are guilty until proven innocent at this point.
Muse is a platinum album winning band that's got 10 albums over 20 years. If this was stolen, they (and their label) would be raising hell.
> The exact circumstances surrounding the changes aren't clear. The exact circumstances are that they likely paid them a shitload of money.
Don't be so generous in your assumptions. Meta simply stole the username because they could, and gave the old owner nothing in return. Or if they were lucky, maybe the band got a few Meta branded t-shirts, as was the case for one of the other victims from the article. Seriously, look at that list of all the times Meta stole people's handles. Why would this time be any different?
Note that if this was done against the band's will it would be fantastic publicity for them to say so. Everyone would be on their side.
Meta probably reached out to them to remove any uncertainty around sharing the Muse trademark, and this was included in the deal. The band themselves didn't lose any followers, it was a rename. They might have asked for a clause not to talk about the deal.