61–70 of 112 posts
Wild so many creators are pouring their life’s work into these platforms instead of their personal website
It really isn’t. No one is going to some randos website. Notice how this conversation is here instead of on Engadget itself, comments powered by openweb
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.
Well in a decent society you can't take things that aren't yours. Nobody using Muse the tool knows or gives a fuck who Muse the band is, the band itself is twice their age. At 32 years a band is reaching Spinal Tap stage and they could probably use the cash. Occam's razor and all that.
I have younger relatives that love Muse (and Spinal Tap).
Before today, I'd never heard of the muse app that chanhed it's name.
One of my absolute favorite apps similarly likely got a bid to change. https://allume.com/allume-faq/
Not disclosing how much they were paid... I see that as incredibly dishonest and scummy. Sure "an opportunity regarding the trademark" yadda yadda... empty lawyerspeak that turns me right away.
They were probably under an agreement not to reveal the buyer or amount.
Meta in turn probably wouldn’t have wanted news to get out and people forerunning them to claim other online properties just to sell them back.
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.
> 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?
Read the TOS for these services ... you don't own anything stored on their servers
> The exact circumstances surrounding the changes aren't clear. The exact circumstances are that they likely paid them a shitload of money.
Everyone is reaching for pitchforks but all signs point to the band getting a huge payday.
> The exact circumstances surrounding the changes aren't clear. The exact circumstances are that they likely paid them a shitload of money.
Funnily enough that is against the Instagram ToS ( https://help.instagram.com/termsofuse ): > 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); soli…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
"The old owner" was $platform Read the TOS for these services ... you don't own anything stored on their servers
"lost" is incredibly misleading, as there's no evidence they weren't paid to hand the handles over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well in a decent society you can't take things that aren't yours. Nobody using Muse the tool knows or gives a fuck who Muse the band is, the band itself is twice their age. At 32 years a band is reaching Spinal Tap stage and they could probably use the cash. Occam's razor and all that.
I listened to the Beatles growing up, despite them being much more thab twice my age. I have younger relatives that love Muse (and Spinal Tap). Before today, I'd never heard of the muse app that chanhed it's name.