Rock band Muse lose social media handles to Meta’s new AI tool

Post by LoganDark » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 1:13 AM UTC

jeeeb wrote: post #63

LoganDark wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why? What business is it of yours? 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.

Post by throw0101a » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 1:14 AM UTC

brookst wrote: post #76

Aurornis wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meta simply stole the username because they could, and gave the old owner nothing in return. The name changed happened across platforms including Twitter\X. Meta doesn’t own X. Is nobody reading the article? This comment section is crazy.

This place has become Reddit with how easy it is to farm upvotes for any “evil corpos” take, no matter how clueless or inane.

Post by mattgreenrocks » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 1:15 AM UTC

comrade1234 wrote: post #45

I never heard of muse the band. I never heard of meta's muse either.

Post by underlipton » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 1:19 AM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #71

nvme0n1p1 wrote: post #58

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?

> Meta simply stole the username because they could, and gave the old owner nothing in return. The name changed happened across platforms including Twitter\X. Meta doesn’t own X. Is nobody reading the article? This comment section is crazy.

Post by lrvick » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 1:40 AM UTC

csallen wrote: post #44

lrvick wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree, this is an unreasonable and almost certainly incorrect thing to assume happened in this case. The fact that one hates XYZ is not a good reason to turn one's brain off and lose the ability to think rationally about XYZ. In fact, I would argue that there's never a good reason to turn one's brain off and lose the ability to think even moderately intelligently.