51–60 of 135 posts
The only surprising thing here is that it's not even that good of a name. I understand platforms yanking the handles of established brands and registered trademarks, but is "sussexroyal" really as good an Instagram name as Harry and Meghan can come up with, and worth the negative pr of stories like this one?
Well, it feels weird to defend Instagram, but here we go. The important lines from the article are these ones: > Instagram confirmed to Newsbeat that Kevin's handle had been changed in line with its policy. > It allows it to make changes to an account if it's been inactive for a certain amount of time. I tried going to the guy's new Instagram [1], but couldn't see any posts there at all. I visited his Twitter [2] ins…
In fact, Instagram basically encourages this type of account use. Any time you try to browse the site they try to get you to sign-up, even if you have zero intention of making your own posts.
It sounds like the guy would have given the account name over either way, so why couldn't they have simply contacted him first and asked?
Well, it feels weird to defend Instagram, but here we go. The important lines from the article are these ones: > Instagram confirmed to Newsbeat that Kevin's handle had been changed in line with its policy. > It allows it to make changes to an account if it's been inactive for a certain amount of time. I tried going to the guy's new Instagram [1], but couldn't see any posts there at all. I visited his Twitter [2] ins…
I don't understand online services' obsession with making sure public-facing identifiers are unique. This is not close to true in any other area. How many British guys can be named Harry?
If there could be two World of Warcraft toons named Joe, maybe there wouldn't be so many xX_KillStealr69_Xx-es running around.
Distrokid email: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8tw90s0n8urj9j3/distro-email.png?d...
My reply: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ym9oxvwprkqm9ph/distro-reply.png?d...
Well, it feels weird to defend Instagram, but here we go. The important lines from the article are these ones: > Instagram confirmed to Newsbeat that Kevin's handle had been changed in line with its policy. > It allows it to make changes to an account if it's been inactive for a certain amount of time. I tried going to the guy's new Instagram [1], but couldn't see any posts there at all. I visited his Twitter [2] ins…
> encourage a more lively and current community Ahh yes, nothing more lively and current than watching senior citizens coo over monarchs. In all seriousness, this is just another step towards instagram being another bland reflection of the media fun house in which we all live: famous people get air time to pimp products and movements.
Nobody in this situation is a monarch or ever likely to be a monarch.
Well, it feels weird to defend Instagram, but here we go. The important lines from the article are these ones: > Instagram confirmed to Newsbeat that Kevin's handle had been changed in line with its policy. > It allows it to make changes to an account if it's been inactive for a certain amount of time. I tried going to the guy's new Instagram [1], but couldn't see any posts there at all. I visited his Twitter [2] ins…
> Instagram has gotten so big that finding anything that's not a conflict is difficult. I don't understand online services' obsession with making sure public-facing identifiers are unique. This is not close to true in any other area. How many British guys can be named Harry? If there could be two World of Warcraft toons named Joe, maybe there wouldn't be so many xX_KillStealr69_Xx-es running around.
How else could this be accomplished, especially when we are talking about URL structures that need to be somewhat short in length?
I remember reading about this in their TOS years ago... I think they normally outline in under taking away names to give to rightful owners. (If you’re name is @apple for example ). This seems like a poorly handled extension of that power. But- truly just an example of how your use, data, name, etc on these services is really just at their whim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> encourage a more lively and current community Ahh yes, nothing more lively and current than watching senior citizens coo over monarchs. In all seriousness, this is just another step towards instagram being another bland reflection of the media fun house in which we all live: famous people get air time to pimp products and movements.
> watching senior citizens coo over monarchs Nobody in this situation is a monarch or ever likely to be a monarch.
The only surprising thing here is that it's not even that good of a name. I understand platforms yanking the handles of established brands and registered trademarks, but is "sussexroyal" really as good an Instagram name as Harry and Meghan can come up with, and worth the negative pr of stories like this one?
Is this even that negative PR? They're probably going to get more people going "oooh Prince Harry and Meghan are on Instagram I should follow them" than being outraged and quitting
It’s Instagram’s responsibility either way. They could have said “pick another name or we can nicely ask the current owner for that one.”
