4 ms·

How could such an account have been created?

oh_sigh 8y ago
Hard to say without knowing the code, but one common problem is to do something like length checking a username to ensure it is a certain length, and then later stripping out illegal characters.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jakevn 8y ago
Possibly a difference in implementation of unicode between validation and persistence/use. Validates successfully due to one or more "valid" unicode characters -> translated to zero characters due to stripping of invalid unicode character at some point after validation.
- brobinson 8y ago
  Maybe related to MySQL's 3-byte "utf8" charset which doesn't actually support unicode properly? (you are supposed to use "utf8mb4" nowadays though a lot of material still refers to "utf8")
  - joombaga 8y ago
    Found this out when someone pushed a git commit message with a 4byte emoji and it broke our CI server -_-
tedmiston 8y ago
Regex gone bad?
wpietri 8y ago
I asked somebody who used to work there, and the answer I got was that there are a bunch of accounts from back before validation was as tight as it is now. Which seems reasonable to me. At-replies were not something that Twitter started with, but instead were community-driven with software support added later: https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2008/how-replies-work-on-twitter-and-how-they-might.html https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2008/how-replies-w... It's a good reminder that it's always easier to relax restrictions than to tighten them. But then again, if Twitter early on were run by the sort of people who were inclined to lock down everything, it might not have evolved enough to be really useful to people. I hazily remember the Friendster guy getting really mad that people were creating accounts for non-human things that they loved, like cities and bars and companies. I think he went on a banning spree. Instead of saying, "Look how much people love my platform! Let me support them in their efforts."
- CommieBobDole 8y ago
  If I recall correctly, when Google Plus was new and people were excited about it, a whole bunch of companies flocked to the site to set up accounts for their businesses. But Google hadn't launched the "business account" functionality yet, so they banned them all. I guess Google Plus and Friendster are good examples of how that mindset works out.
  - Gigablah 8y ago
    Because nobody could conceivably impersonate a business and cause all sorts of legal and PR issues.
    - computerfriend 8y ago
      Just like nobody could impersonate a person?
      - Gigablah 8y ago
        That's already a given. We are all, in a way, impersonating other (mostly insufferable) persons.
    - wpietri 8y ago
      That is in the category of "nice problem to have". Friendster definitely doesn't have that problem, because despite being a pioneering social network, one that existed before MySpace or Facebook, it is now defunct.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    Facebook did the same thing. I remember having to merge multiple "person" Facebook accounts into a single "business" Facebook account for a client once business accounts became available. It was extra hard not only because FB made the process cumbersome, but because everyone in the company seemed to have taken it upon themselves at some time in the past to create a person account for the business. Sales people, the owner, various marketing people no longer with the company, etc...
cyberferret 8y ago
MVP mania perhaps? You know, the old chestnut about "You have to get the shoddiest, most ethereal, stuck together with sticky tape and chewing gum version of your app out there to get market validation before you do some serious development work on it" ideology that is always being touted in the startup world... It tends to lead to this sort of technical debt.
- hultner 8y ago
  To be honest at least in this case it’s probably worth it. It great to have something delivered so we don’t waste enormous energy on building features no one ends up wanting.
- laumars 8y ago
  MVP doesn't necessarily mean a product is buggy. It means a product excludes nice-to-have features that doesn't add immediate value. Basic validation is something I've always pushed for even for MVPs as that often goes hand in hand with platform security (another thing I still push for in MVPs)

Hard to say without knowing the code, but one common problem is to do something like length checking a username to ensure it is a certain length, and then later stripping out illegal characters.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jakevn 8y ago

Possibly a difference in implementation of unicode between validation and persistence/use. Validates successfully due to one or more "valid" unicode characters -> translated to zero characters due to stripping of invalid unicode character at some point after validation.

brobinson 8y ago
Maybe related to MySQL's 3-byte "utf8" charset which doesn't actually support unicode properly? (you are supposed to use "utf8mb4" nowadays though a lot of material still refers to "utf8")
- joombaga 8y ago
  Found this out when someone pushed a git commit message with a 4byte emoji and it broke our CI server -_-

tedmiston 8y ago

Regex gone bad?

wpietri 8y ago

I asked somebody who used to work there, and the answer I got was that there are a bunch of accounts from back before validation was as tight as it is now. Which seems reasonable to me. At-replies were not something that Twitter started with, but instead were community-driven with software support added later: https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2008/how-replies-work-on-twitter-and-how-they-might.html https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2008/how-replies-w... It's a good reminder that it's always easier to relax restrictions than to tighten them. But then again, if Twitter early on were run by the sort of people who were inclined to lock down everything, it might not have evolved enough to be really useful to people. I hazily remember the Friendster guy getting really mad that people were creating accounts for non-human things that they loved, like cities and bars and companies. I think he went on a banning spree. Instead of saying, "Look how much people love my platform! Let me support them in their efforts."

CommieBobDole 8y ago
If I recall correctly, when Google Plus was new and people were excited about it, a whole bunch of companies flocked to the site to set up accounts for their businesses. But Google hadn't launched the "business account" functionality yet, so they banned them all. I guess Google Plus and Friendster are good examples of how that mindset works out.
- Gigablah 8y ago
  Because nobody could conceivably impersonate a business and cause all sorts of legal and PR issues.
  - computerfriend 8y ago
    Just like nobody could impersonate a person?
    - Gigablah 8y ago
      That's already a given. We are all, in a way, impersonating other (mostly insufferable) persons.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    That is in the category of "nice problem to have". Friendster definitely doesn't have that problem, because despite being a pioneering social network, one that existed before MySpace or Facebook, it is now defunct.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  Facebook did the same thing. I remember having to merge multiple "person" Facebook accounts into a single "business" Facebook account for a client once business accounts became available. It was extra hard not only because FB made the process cumbersome, but because everyone in the company seemed to have taken it upon themselves at some time in the past to create a person account for the business. Sales people, the owner, various marketing people no longer with the company, etc...

cyberferret 8y ago

MVP mania perhaps? You know, the old chestnut about "You have to get the shoddiest, most ethereal, stuck together with sticky tape and chewing gum version of your app out there to get market validation before you do some serious development work on it" ideology that is always being touted in the startup world... It tends to lead to this sort of technical debt.

hultner 8y ago
To be honest at least in this case it’s probably worth it. It great to have something delivered so we don’t waste enormous energy on building features no one ends up wanting.
laumars 8y ago
MVP doesn't necessarily mean a product is buggy. It means a product excludes nice-to-have features that doesn't add immediate value. Basic validation is something I've always pushed for even for MVPs as that often goes hand in hand with platform security (another thing I still push for in MVPs)