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

Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

blog.stevepoland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#51

Post by imp »

GHFigs wrote: post #29
imp wrote: post #9

The user name bostonceltics is taken by someone that is doing the same thing and using the Boston Celtics' logo for their icon. Seems like they would have been a better candidate to bully into moving their user name. http://twitter.com/bostonceltics

Why is that better? The author was using the logo for both the icon and the background, and under the name "Boston Celtics News", and perhaps most damningly, it wasn't a fan account by an actual human being, it was a fully automated bot account. One one dozens he runs. Or did run, before most of them were suspended. See the list here, and see how many are still around: http://blog.stevepoland.com/first-twitter-bots-l…

True. I guess I meant from just the Celtic's standpoint. They would have more of a right to get bostonceltics since that's probably their actual brand name. As someone else pointed out, the term celtics refers to more than just a basketball team.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#52

Post by sh1mmer »

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 think the point here is that if someone is using a twitter ID for a reasonable use then it's unreasonable for Twitter to turf them off. The use of 'celtics' as an unofficial fan site seems pretty legitimate. Why does a sports team have dibs? If I'm from Ireland can I kick them off? My claim would have more historic president.

Twitter should have a resolution process similar to ICANN.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#53

Post by jamiequint »

GHFigs wrote: post #48
jamiequint wrote: post #43

I don't understand why most people here are siding with Twitter. Their TOS clearly say that they don't tolerate impersonation, but running a fan account (or even simply holding a Twitter name and not using it) doesn't amount to impersonation. Why should any company automatically be granted the right to their username on any service? Of course Twitter reserves the right to do whatever is best for their business, but s…

I don't believe that you can honestly say that the author's valuation of "celtics" over "bc_fan_news" or any other name does not come from the potential for misidentification and association with the Boston Celtics brand. It may not be the most thorough attempt at deception, but it is reasonable to call that a form of impersonation. From a "libertarian/free market" perspective, why the hell should I favor the guy who…

I don't understand all the vitrol...

"guy who made a stupid mistake in thinking that he owned something that he didn't"

The point is that the Celtics organization doesn't deserve special treatment. Why is it "utterly stupid" to think that you could get some names (whether related to an organization or not) that you could later sell? As long as you don't think you are in violation of the TOS it seems pretty logical to me.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#54

Post by jamiequint »

kragen wrote: post #49
jamiequint wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Twitter making money by getting the Celtics their @ name is more worthy than letting a guy run fan information using that name? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

You fail at reading comprehension.

Feel free to actually say something constructive without being an asshole next time.

Did the guy violate any rules? Not unless you go by a strict definition of Twitter's TOS. Your original analogy makes no sense. The Celtics didn't have the name stolen from them (they never owned it in the first place) and the guy wasn't using it for a non-legitimate reason, so why should he not benefit from the common knowledge of the association of "Celtics" with the Boston Celtics basketball team?

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#55

Post by jamiequint »

webwright wrote: post #41
rokhayakebe wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Totally disagree... And I believe the law does as well, when it comes to domain names (the best precedent I can think of). If I bought toyota.com, nissan.com, honda.com, etc when domain names first came available, that doesn't mean I have the rights to keep them unless I had legitimate interests in those domain names that didn't compete with the trademark holder (as was the case in the Nissan.com situation). Certainl…

I don't understand the association of capitalism with greed, certainly people who had the foresight to understand that domains would be valuable at some point in the future (and put their money where their mouths were) should be compensated (at a reasonable price) for taking that risk no?

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#56

Post by tolmasky »

webwright wrote: post #40
swombat wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ef…

This is nothing like that since its not a publicly-available domain (with ties to the govt. no less), but a private username.

If I held a party at my house where I gave out unique nametags, the Celtics wouldn't have the right over the one that said "celtics" on it.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#57

Post by kragen »

jamiequint wrote: post #54
kragen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You fail at reading comprehension.

Feel free to actually say something constructive without being an asshole next time. Did the guy violate any rules? Not unless you go by a strict definition of Twitter's TOS. Your original analogy makes no sense. The Celtics didn't have the name stolen from them (they never owned it in the first place) and the guy wasn't using it for a non-legitimate reason, so why should he not benefit from the common knowledge of t…

I said, “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.”. Your response was a complete non-sequitur, and furthermore it appeared to attribute to me a position including material facts that are probably false. In the comment to which I am replying, you have called me an “asshole.”

I appreciate your expressed concern for the constructiveness of the conversation. May I suggest that you try a different strategy if a constructive conversation is what you seek? Putting words in the mouths of other participants and name-calling may not be the most effective way to engage in a constructive conversation.

I was just pointing out that rokhayakebe's syllogism, “Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should totally benefit from it,” depends on an absurd unstated premise. Whether this blogger who we’re talking about happens to be a robo-spamming scumbag or not isn’t really relevant to that.

And that is why you fail at reading comprehension.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#58

Post by jamiequint »

kragen wrote: post #57
jamiequint wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel free to actually say something constructive without being an asshole next time. Did the guy violate any rules? Not unless you go by a strict definition of Twitter's TOS. Your original analogy makes no sense. The Celtics didn't have the name stolen from them (they never owned it in the first place) and the guy wasn't using it for a non-legitimate reason, so why should he not benefit from the common knowledge of t…

I said, “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.”. Your response was a complete non-sequitur, and furthermore it appeared to attribute to me a position including material facts that are probably false. In the comment to which I am replying, you have called me an “asshole.” I appreciate your expressed con…

First, you asserted that it was wrong for Party B (your wife) to suffer because Party A (a thief) took her laptop. It was unclear whether you were only trying to point out that opportunism isn't always moral, or if you were also making the allegation that what the OP had initially done in this case was immoral. (which it is now clear you were not) I was simply comparing the morality of Twitter in this case to the morality of the OP.

Second, the position I attributed to you was a natural extension of your argument, if you don't qualify such a statement as part of a discussion I'm going to assume you are applying your suggestion to the discussion as a whole. In this case you brought up that opportunism is not always moral, which is true, but you did not exclude the discussion at hand so I made the assumption that you were implying that the OPs stance was immoral as well.

Third, please tell me how you expected "you fail at reading comprehension" to lead to any sort of rational debate before you accuse me of the same. When you say such things without qualification don't be surprised if you get called an asshole, because under the circumstances its likely true.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#59

Post by GHFigs »

jamiequint wrote: post #53
GHFigs wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that you can honestly say that the author's valuation of "celtics" over "bc_fan_news" or any other name does not come from the potential for misidentification and association with the Boston Celtics brand. It may not be the most thorough attempt at deception, but it is reasonable to call that a form of impersonation. From a "libertarian/free market" perspective, why the hell should I favor the guy who…

I don't understand all the vitrol... "guy who made a stupid mistake in thinking that he owned something that he didn't" The point is that the Celtics organization doesn't deserve special treatment. Why is it "utterly stupid" to think that you could get some names (whether related to an organization or not) that you could later sell? As long as you don't think you are in violation of the TOS it seems pretty logical to…

He was stupid for thinking he owned the rights to a field in Twitter's database, regardless of what it contained, or how long he held it.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#60

Post by webwright »

jamiequint wrote: post #55
webwright wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally disagree... And I believe the law does as well, when it comes to domain names (the best precedent I can think of). If I bought toyota.com, nissan.com, honda.com, etc when domain names first came available, that doesn't mean I have the rights to keep them unless I had legitimate interests in those domain names that didn't compete with the trademark holder (as was the case in the Nissan.com situation). Certainl…

I don't understand the association of capitalism with greed, certainly people who had the foresight to understand that domains would be valuable at some point in the future (and put their money where their mouths were) should be compensated (at a reasonable price) for taking that risk no?

Taking the risk and grabbing something generic-but-powerful, like "business.com" or "porn.com" seems fine. Grabbing someone elses brand name for the purpose of squatting on it and then extorting the trademark owner just seems wrong.

The point is that the domains would have almost ZERO value if the business who has the trademark hadn't spent huge piles of money building the brand and the goodwill around it. In this guys case, he grabs @celtics and tosses up some basketball stats, and he's basically leeching off the brand. It's not dissimilar to setting up a Hamburger stand and calling it "McDonalds" with a stylized "M" logo.

In domain/twitter name case, there's no actual risk being taken. Twitter names are free. Domain names are cheap ($30/year at first). So in my mind, they should be compensated at a reasonable price for the risk they took... Let's say 30x return on whatever they put into it. :-)

Post reply on HN