Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

the-independent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 112 posts

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

#101

Post by ben_w »

TZubiri wrote: post #97
ben_w wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Last I checked usernames aren't a public good. You're part of a social network and they get to set the policy. I'd count this as "strong-armed into this". The giants want all the benefits of being public spaces with none of the responsibilities. To use their (US) constitutional right to free speech to sell any ad they want, while using their power (as a private corporation) to ban (or algorithmically censor) unwant…

>To use their (US) constitutional right to free speech to sell any ad they want First I've heard of this, in what case was free speech used to justify a right to show a specific ad? >while using their power (as a private corporation) to ban (or algorithmically censor) unwanted speech It's actually the opposite, they justify being a public forum for free spech in order NOT to be liable for vetting and publishing the c…

> First I've heard of this, in what case was free speech used to justify a right to show a specific ad?

All of them? This is pretty much the default case. If Meta or Google or whoever say "we don't want to show this ad", they're allowed to, it's fine, they're not a public (/government) space who has to follow the 1st's requirement to not-censor.

My point is Meta and Google (I assume others but they're the big ones), want to be treated as an entity with first amendment rights, rather than one with first amendment responsibilities, even though they're also trying to position themselves as mandatory or the only space (that matters).

> It's actually the opposite, they justify being a public forum for free spech in order NOT to be liable for vetting and publishing the content, they want to be considered a neutral intermediary, not a publisher liable in any way for whatever is published.

Sounds like you're talking about section 230; I read there's a lot of misinformation about that. Apparently what it really does is protect (at least some subset of) "good faith" filtering like spam filters. However, what a lot of people today object to is under the (painfully vague to all us software nerds) title of "the algorithm", which is basically editorialising for maximum user engagement/addiction.

Anywho, here's a quick search result of one example where they were found to be "that's fine" for terminating ad campaigns:

https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/04/tulsi-gabbard-google-free-...

And here's one where the courts say, if my understanding of the summary is correct, "Meta is not a state actor normally but sometimes can be": https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21...

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

#102

Post by loeg »

kibae wrote: post #57
sippingabonedry wrote: post #19

> 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…

ToS doesn't constrain the owner.

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

#103

Post by loeg »

Aurornis wrote: post #68
00ze wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The old owner" was $platform Read the TOS for these services ... you don't own anything stored on their servers

Incorrect. This happened across platforms including X.

I think GP is (correctly) claiming that you don't actually own your account handle on social media services, including X. But I don't think it was a particularly relevant response at that point in the comment thread, and I agree Meta likely bought the usernames from the band on the various platforms.

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

#104

Post by loeg »

nosioptar wrote: post #62
sippingabonedry wrote: post #37

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.

> Before today, I'd never heard of the muse app

It only launched two days ago, so.

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

#106

Post by loeg »

adamrezich wrote: post #8
bko wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I checked usernames aren't a public good. You're part of a social network and they get to set the policy. Sure, you can claim it was a dick move, and maybe it is (although why is a handle so valuable? "muse instagram" now links to the @museband and their followers were transferred). This is just some phony outrage. It's also ironic that the overlap of people that find this offensive but were fine with social med…

I don't know why you're being downvoted—social media handles aren't, say, domain names, or anything like that.

It's just non-responsive to the parent comment. Lay people would consider that "stolen," whether the original account holder possessed a legal right to the name or not. GP even quoted it like that to show they were not talking about the legal concept of ownership.

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

#107

Post by ghusto »

paxys wrote: post #49
theturtletalks wrote: post #12

Wild so many creators are pouring their life’s work into these platforms instead of their personal website

Have tens of millions of engaged fans or just tens? Difficult choice.

I'm old enough to remember when bands did everything on their own sites, complete with message boards. I _really_ miss that. Twitter is just a middle-man nobody wants when you're talking about artists.

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

#108

Post by ghusto »

loganc2342 wrote: post #33
theturtletalks wrote: post #12

Wild so many creators are pouring their life’s work into these platforms instead of their personal website

I get what you're saying, but the vast majority of people aren't going to bother going to someone's random website. I think the best you can do in this day and age is put your eggs into as many different baskets as possible, a personal website being included in that. That way, you can maximize eyes on your work and one platform suddenly losing popularity or going to crap doesn't ruin you.

I and others I know would. Granted we're not the vast majority, but my feeling is that people don't do it nowadays because they've been trained not to. If bands went back to their own sites, I'd say people would follow.

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

#109

Post by csallen »

lrvick wrote: post #89
csallen wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am agreeing it is unlikely it was actually malicious, but it is Meta and they deserve no charity. If it is even a small possibility they did the evil thing, we should all operate on the assumption they did the evil thing anyway until proven innocent. I hope all the non charitable assumptions they deserve snowball enough to hurt them. May their stock price burn in hell.

I really really really really REALLY don't like this way of thinking, and I hope that fewer and fewer people adopt it.

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

#110

Post by zdragnar »

cortesoft wrote: post #72
zdragnar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Both are equally possible. I don't think so, because if it was involuntary from Muse the band, surely they would post something about it. They would get a ton of publicity and goodwill for shit talking Meta, and the fact that they aren't makes it much more likely that they were paid for it.

You're right, I was thinking in my head "equally possible based on the information presented" but didn't write it out. Were I a betting man, I'd put money on them being paid to transfer the name rather than X screwing over a well known band for the benefit of their own competition, Meta.
Post reply on HN