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

How I Lost My $50,000 Twitter Username

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 394 posts

Re: How I Lost My $50,000 Twitter Username

#241

Post by dkersten »

yashg wrote: post #164
jrs99 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's definitely a squatter. If you own something and you don't use it, you're a squatter. I own an old original Nintendo that I haven't used all year. That's why if someone comes into my house and takes it, it's my own fault.

I understand it was a sarcasm, but there's one difference between the two. A Twitter handle or a domain name is something unique as opposed to a game console of which there were millions of copies.

So if I have a unique object that I don't use or look at or whatever one does with unique objects (say, a piece of art or something), I'm a squatter and its perfectly ok for someone to take it away from me?

Re: How I Lost My $50,000 Twitter Username

#242

Post by gizzlon »

apl002 wrote: post #185
markdown wrote: post #24

I feel bad for this guy, and twitter needs to do the right thing and return to him his handle. Then I can come back here and post nasty comments about squatters.

Any thoughts why the attacker would tell the guy how he did it if this is the obvious solution?

Reminds me of this Seinfeld episode where Jerry calls a car thief :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG-_tz5YuZE

Re: How I Lost My $50,000 Twitter Username

#244

Post by chrisbennet »

chmars wrote: post #160
jrs99 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's definitely a squatter. If you own something and you don't use it, you're a squatter. I own an old original Nintendo that I haven't used all year. That's why if someone comes into my house and takes it, it's my own fault.

I tend to disagree: The right of ownership includes to right to use what you own in your own way.

chmars, I think he was being sarcastic.

Re: How I Lost My $50,000 Twitter Username

#245

Post by [deleted] »

chmars wrote: post #160
jrs99 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's definitely a squatter. If you own something and you don't use it, you're a squatter. I own an old original Nintendo that I haven't used all year. That's why if someone comes into my house and takes it, it's my own fault.

I tend to disagree: The right of ownership includes to right to use what you own in your own way.

[deleted]

Re: How I Lost My $50,000 Twitter Username

#246

Post by cpach »

qznc wrote: post #235
blueskin_ wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, http://plaintextoffenders.com exists - someone should make creditcardoffenders.com .

Now there needs to be a browser plugin, which warns you when you are about to create an account on such a website.

That's an awesome idea!

Re: How I Lost My $50,000 Twitter Username

#247

Post by vladtaltos »

besides the obvious stupidity of the parties involved, why would anyone pay for such an uninformative handle 50k ? @N ? seriously -- doesn't spam occur for twitter feeds yet ? I remember when google started off they didn't allow you to have email addresses less than 6 characters to avoid spam...

btw, @! google search returns 0 results. interesting... hmm, twitter apparently allows alphanumeric handles only...

Re: How I Lost My $50,000 Twitter Username

#248

Post by eik3_de »

harryh wrote: post #18

Who are people's current favorite domain registrars? I've been with name.com for the last year or so and have been happy, but I'm always curios to hear from others.

I can recommend www.inwx.de

Have been using them since 2006 both personally and at work. They do have 2 factor auth.

Re: How I Lost My $50,000 Twitter Username

#250

Post by chris_wot »

brador wrote: post #21
georgemcbay wrote: post #4

Seems like Twitter could easily verify the story based on their own logs and then restore access to his N account. He doesn't mention pursuing that, though.

He said he wasn't using it much. Thus, isn't he basically a squatter?

No. A squattor who takes over something that is abandoned or little used. Someone who does the abandoning or little uses the thing they own is the one being squatted upon.

Now I reread that, it sounds a little... sexual.

Post reply on HN