5 ms·

I thought the reasons for having doubts about the source were obvious, so I didn't write them down. What matters is I came to the conclusion the story was valid

by Udo 16y ago

I thought the reasons for having doubts about the source were obvious, so I didn't write them down. What matters is I came to the conclusion the story was valid, otherwise I would not have commented on it. And even if it had turned out to be fake, the essence of the story is still important and believable. > As for people somehow thinking they have the right to use Twitter's services like property - this is actively encouraged by Twitter themselves I know. But that's not reality, that's marketing. > The main issue here wasn't that the original owner of the @girlgeeks account assumed that they were entitled to ownership of the username. It was that the name was taken away from them without any opportunity to dispute Twitter's intention [...] In my view, one follows the other. Allow me to clarify: the outrage over Twitter's behavior comes from the (mistaken) perception that Twitter must provide a service to its users and that it has to do so in a fair and balanced fashion. This sense of entitlement, however, does not correspond to reality. In reality, they can do whatever they want. I don't mean to defend their actions, personally I don't think this is a nice way to treat users, though there may be legal issues that leave them little choice which we know nothing about. > Those _are_ reasonable expectations. Companies certainly want you to believe they are in order to gain their users' trust, but that doesn't mean we should forget who is holding the strings.

collypops 16y ago
I completely agree. Twitter don't owe anything to anyone using their free services. I'm not arguing that Twitter is bound to any laws of decency, or due process. I am just debating that they should be. The article doesn't just serve as an account of someone who was wrongfully burned by a company who couldn't care less. It serves as a warning for anyone else looking to foster a relationship with their community/fanbase/customers via Twitter.
- Udo 16y ago
  I can absolutely get behind the sentiment, and I do believe stories like these should be put out there to serve as a reminder about the true nature of the services we all have come to rely on. > I'm not arguing that Twitter is bound to any laws of decency, or due process. I am just debating that they should be. This is where I think our opinions diverge. I don't believe it's reasonable or even possible to bind websites like this legally. But even if it was possible, I assert it's a very bad idea. The justice system in any country is extremely fallible and exploitable, and there are too many laws regarding the net already. Instead, I think we should move back to a web that operates like a federation of services, as opposed to just giving the reins to a select few companies who make a living from selling advertising. Monolithic sites are great incubators for new ideas, such as Twitter and Facebook. But they're a terrible idea both technically and socially for safekeeping the world's data.
  - collypops 16y ago
    I wasn't implying that they should be bound by law to be decent, or use due process. I meant that they should be decent, and they should use due process, regardless.
    - Udo 16y ago
      Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, they absolutely should be decent and I even think that Twitter et.al. wouldn't have gotten as far as they did if they hadn't demonstrated basic likability and decency in the past. However, even with the best intentions, stuff like this happens. It's just a matter of probability. Now, as a company grows larger, those good intentions disappear as well, essentially being replaced by a group of lawyers, some draconic ToS, and a couple of outsourced employees on minimum wage that get to decide individual users' fates without any possibility of recourse. This looks to me like an inherent problem of the system, the qualities that made up the spirit of a startup often dissolve over time.
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>> As for people somehow thinking they have the right to use Twitter's services like property - this is actively encouraged by Twitter themselves >I know. But that's not reality, that's marketing. If you offer something in your marketing that is accepted by the person receiving your service then working directly in opposition to implied expectations of that offer strikes me as a breach of [implied] contract, and certainly contrary to trust and honourable action.
cabalamat 16y ago
>> As for people somehow thinking they have the right to use Twitter's services like property - this is actively encouraged by Twitter themselves > I know. But that's not reality, that's marketing. When marketing is based on lies, that's called fraud.
- kelnos 16y ago
  Testing this argument; I'm not sure I believe it (yet), so please tear it apart: When we think of traditional marketing, we think of a company selling a service, marketing it to its customers. When Twitter encourages you to build your brand on their service, is that really marketing to you? You are not Twitter's customer. They provide a free service. The advertisers are Twitter's customers. Is it fraud to "market" something in a not-entirely-honest manner to someone who is not and will not be your customer? (Seriously, I'm asking.) I'd consider it morally wrong to lie to someone like that, but is it actually fraudulent in the legal sense? EDIT: Also a related question: when Twitter says "build your brand on Twitter," are they even marketing to you, the Twitter user? Seems like maybe they're telling potential advertisers (remember, their real customers), "hey, we're getting people to build their brands here, that should be valuable to you!"
  - cabalamat 16y ago
    > Is it fraud to "market" something in a not-entirely-honest manner to someone who is not and will not be your customer? IANAL, but my reading of UK law is yes. The relevant law is section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 -- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2 Fraud is (I paraphrase) lying to get money. It doesn't matter if the person you're lying to isn't the person you're getting money from.
    - kelnos 16y ago
      Is Twitter really "lying to get money" here? They're telling you that you can build your brand on Twitter. And you can. Is it misleading that they don't have a little asterisk that says at the bottom in fine print, "but we may take it away if someone else has a trademark on your brand name"? Yeah, maybe. Is that fraud? Ehhh... I'm not convinced.

by Udo 16y ago

collypops 16y ago

I completely agree. Twitter don't owe anything to anyone using their free services. I'm not arguing that Twitter is bound to any laws of decency, or due process. I am just debating that they should be. The article doesn't just serve as an account of someone who was wrongfully burned by a company who couldn't care less. It serves as a warning for anyone else looking to foster a relationship with their community/fanbase/customers via Twitter.

Udo 16y ago
I can absolutely get behind the sentiment, and I do believe stories like these should be put out there to serve as a reminder about the true nature of the services we all have come to rely on. > I'm not arguing that Twitter is bound to any laws of decency, or due process. I am just debating that they should be. This is where I think our opinions diverge. I don't believe it's reasonable or even possible to bind websites like this legally. But even if it was possible, I assert it's a very bad idea. The justice system in any country is extremely fallible and exploitable, and there are too many laws regarding the net already. Instead, I think we should move back to a web that operates like a federation of services, as opposed to just giving the reins to a select few companies who make a living from selling advertising. Monolithic sites are great incubators for new ideas, such as Twitter and Facebook. But they're a terrible idea both technically and socially for safekeeping the world's data.
- collypops 16y ago
  I wasn't implying that they should be bound by law to be decent, or use due process. I meant that they should be decent, and they should use due process, regardless.
  - Udo 16y ago
    Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, they absolutely should be decent and I even think that Twitter et.al. wouldn't have gotten as far as they did if they hadn't demonstrated basic likability and decency in the past. However, even with the best intentions, stuff like this happens. It's just a matter of probability. Now, as a company grows larger, those good intentions disappear as well, essentially being replaced by a group of lawyers, some draconic ToS, and a couple of outsourced employees on minimum wage that get to decide individual users' fates without any possibility of recourse. This looks to me like an inherent problem of the system, the qualities that made up the spirit of a startup often dissolve over time.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

>> As for people somehow thinking they have the right to use Twitter's services like property - this is actively encouraged by Twitter themselves >I know. But that's not reality, that's marketing. If you offer something in your marketing that is accepted by the person receiving your service then working directly in opposition to implied expectations of that offer strikes me as a breach of [implied] contract, and certainly contrary to trust and honourable action.

cabalamat 16y ago

kelnos 16y ago
Testing this argument; I'm not sure I believe it (yet), so please tear it apart: When we think of traditional marketing, we think of a company selling a service, marketing it to its customers. When Twitter encourages you to build your brand on their service, is that really marketing to you? You are not Twitter's customer. They provide a free service. The advertisers are Twitter's customers. Is it fraud to "market" something in a not-entirely-honest manner to someone who is not and will not be your customer? (Seriously, I'm asking.) I'd consider it morally wrong to lie to someone like that, but is it actually fraudulent in the legal sense? EDIT: Also a related question: when Twitter says "build your brand on Twitter," are they even marketing to you, the Twitter user? Seems like maybe they're telling potential advertisers (remember, their real customers), "hey, we're getting people to build their brands here, that should be valuable to you!"
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > Is it fraud to "market" something in a not-entirely-honest manner to someone who is not and will not be your customer? IANAL, but my reading of UK law is yes. The relevant law is section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 -- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2 Fraud is (I paraphrase) lying to get money. It doesn't matter if the person you're lying to isn't the person you're getting money from.
  - kelnos 16y ago
    Is Twitter really "lying to get money" here? They're telling you that you can build your brand on Twitter. And you can. Is it misleading that they don't have a little asterisk that says at the bottom in fine print, "but we may take it away if someone else has a trademark on your brand name"? Yeah, maybe. Is that fraud? Ehhh... I'm not convinced.