Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames • Hacker News Board

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#31

Post by twopoint718 » Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 8:55 PM UTC

AndrewWarner wrote: post #27

axod wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it the same issue as last year, and the last 10 years? Picking usernames etc isn't a new practice.

My point is that it's an old problem in desperate search of a solution. We need a single name that works across all sites. Why should I have to tell people that I'm AndrewWarner on Hacker news and Twitter, but if they want to find me on digg on AndrewDiggs because AndrewWarner was already taken. And if the want to find me... We need one public identifier that works across all networks. What do you think?

Solve it the same way that they solve naming conflicts in programming languages: namespaces (Edit: as others have suggested).

There is both a "whitehouse.com" (it has a landing page at the moment, SFW) and a "whitehouse.gov"

I tend to side with Twitter here. Don't like it? Go create your own website (set up a laconi.ca node). I don't think that there is any inherent justification in the first-come-first-serve method of provisioning, maybe it is just an artifact of our culture?

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#32

Post by kragen » Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 9:05 PM UTC

swombat wrote: post #3

geuis wrote: post #2

So someone is complaining that they registered a bunch of names they thought would be monetarily valuable at a later date, and is complaining when the company that provides the service is disallowing him from doing it? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me. I have no sorrow for domain squatters, and that extends to people who grabbed Facebook app names, Twitter names, whatever. Twitter isn't like the DNS…

Twitter don't mandate that you have to use your account for personal reasons only, as far as I know. How you use your account is up to you - that's one of Twitter's strengths... every person uses it in their own way. I have no sympathy for domain squatters, but I have no sympathy for domain bullies either. the "Boston Celtics", whoever they are, have as little right to the username "celtics" as this guy. As such, he…

In this case he was using the username "celtics" to provide updates about the Boston Celtics, with their logo as the page background.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#33

Post by kragen » Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 9:08 PM UTC

rokhayakebe wrote: post #14

geuis wrote: post #2

So someone is complaining that they registered a bunch of names they thought would be monetarily valuable at a later date, and is complaining when the company that provides the service is disallowing him from doing it? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me. I have no sorrow for domain squatters, and that extends to people who grabbed Facebook app names, Twitter names, whatever. Twitter isn't like the DNS…

First of, you could have skipped the insults. Apparently you do not know much about Steve. I recommend you go read some of his 70+ ideas he posted almost 2 years back. Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should totally benefit from it. 18 months ago, most people did not know about Twitter and they could not see it being useful to anyone. Steve did. You should go back to his blog entries at…

“Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should totally benefit from it.”

That happened to my wife a couple of months ago; she was trying to use her laptop on the street to record a protest, and someone saw an opportunity where most people did not, and ran off carrying her laptop. I bet he benefited from that.

That someone “saw an opportunity when most people did not” doesn't really tell you anything about whether exploiting that opportunity is moral or immoral.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#34

Post by kragen » Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 9:12 PM UTC

johns wrote: post #17

dsims wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they allowed duplicate names? Navigating to twitter.com/username would then display everyone with that name (like how Wikipedia handles it). The chances that you are following more than one person with the same name is pretty slim. If that does happen, then you pick which one gets your @ replies.

I wouldn't want my competitors sharing a username with me.

Because you worry there wouldn't be a unique way to link to you, or because you don't want your potential customers to know who thinks they're your competitor, or because you're worried people would get confused?

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#35

Post by kragen » Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 9:14 PM UTC

wmf wrote: post #11

Creating a new namespace is bad, because you renew the same old disputes that people have fought over in the old namespaces. Creating a new flat namespace is worse, because it intensifies the disputes. DNS exists and at least it has a dispute resolution process; let's use it. (see Laconica)

DNS's dispute resolution process is pretty badly broken, don't you think?

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#36

Post by radley » Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 9:19 PM UTC

rokhayakebe wrote: post #14

geuis wrote: post #2

So someone is complaining that they registered a bunch of names they thought would be monetarily valuable at a later date, and is complaining when the company that provides the service is disallowing him from doing it? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me. I have no sorrow for domain squatters, and that extends to people who grabbed Facebook app names, Twitter names, whatever. Twitter isn't like the DNS…

First of, you could have skipped the insults. Apparently you do not know much about Steve. I recommend you go read some of his 70+ ideas he posted almost 2 years back. Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should totally benefit from it. 18 months ago, most people did not know about Twitter and they could not see it being useful to anyone. Steve did. You should go back to his blog entries at…

Twitter-squatting is not the same as domain-squatting. It's more in line with MySpace which has also reserved the right to manage names as they see fit.

Steve's doing nothing more than assuming an opportunity and making an * of himself by complaining about it.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#37

Post by wmf » Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 9:32 PM UTC

kragen wrote: post #35

wmf wrote: post #11

Creating a new namespace is bad, because you renew the same old disputes that people have fought over in the old namespaces. Creating a new flat namespace is worse, because it intensifies the disputes. DNS exists and at least it has a dispute resolution process; let's use it. (see Laconica)

DNS's dispute resolution process is pretty badly broken, don't you think?

I think there is some hope for the UDRP. OTOH Twitter is completely unregulated. Between corporatism and benevolent dictatorship, it's a tough decision.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#38

Post by jodrellblank » Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 9:47 PM UTC

geuis wrote: post #2

So someone is complaining that they registered a bunch of names they thought would be monetarily valuable at a later date, and is complaining when the company that provides the service is disallowing him from doing it? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me. I have no sorrow for domain squatters, and that extends to people who grabbed Facebook app names, Twitter names, whatever. Twitter isn't like the DNS…

I have no sorrow for land squatters. You have land being created by the universe at no charge. Just because you got to the country a hundred years before anyone else, now you think you can claim all the land you roped off and all the useful mineral content of that land? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#39

Post by jerf » Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 9:55 PM UTC

thinkzig wrote: post #16

jerf wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "right to a name". (I've actually got some potential thoughts, but I'd like to not poison the well.)

By "right to a name" I'm speaking specifically about Steve's right to own the Twitter username celtics. From a "first come, first serve" perspective, I suppose he has a right to use the username... until Twitter deems otherwise. The terms of service said they could come and take it, and Steve's not paying them any money for exclusive use of the name, so from that standpoint I don't feel he has a right to use the user…

OK.

I was kicking around a definition involving trademarks. In general, owning a name that can be seen to infringe a trademark is a problem, no matter how you slice it. The Celtics baseball team have an actual, legal claim to the word "Celtics", which is not unlimited by any means, but is certainly stronger than "some guy registered this name on this site".

Now, had he been some sort of Celtic organization (and I mean the ethnic group, not the team) it might be a more interesting discussion, legally.

(And I'm just skipping out on the ethical issues.)

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#40

Post by webwright » Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 10:28 PM UTC

swombat wrote: post #3

geuis wrote: post #2

So someone is complaining that they registered a bunch of names they thought would be monetarily valuable at a later date, and is complaining when the company that provides the service is disallowing him from doing it? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me. I have no sorrow for domain squatters, and that extends to people who grabbed Facebook app names, Twitter names, whatever. Twitter isn't like the DNS…

Twitter don't mandate that you have to use your account for personal reasons only, as far as I know. How you use your account is up to you - that's one of Twitter's strengths... every person uses it in their own way. I have no sympathy for domain squatters, but I have no sympathy for domain bullies either. the "Boston Celtics", whoever they are, have as little right to the username "celtics" as this guy. As such, he…

If you'd grabbed "celtics.com" do you think you would have a legal right to it? What about McDonalds.com? Why is this different than general brand trademarks as they relate to domain names?

It seems to be a conflict if you're in the same "domain". i.e. If I grab @celtics and talk about Celtic language and culture, it shouldn't be a conflict. If I grab it to build a following about the team, I'm piggybacking on the effort/expense of them building that brand and deserve to have it yanked.

IMO, it's very similar to the Nissan.com case - the owner of that domain is named Nissan and has a business with that name. He got there first, and he's got rights. However, if it was some random guy who put up a splash page or a nissan car site, it's trademark infringement, no?