6 ms·
Rock band Muse lose social media handles to Meta’s new AI tool
- pavel_lishin 26d agoIt'd be "stolen" only if Muse (the band) didn't agree to this, or were strong-armed into this.
- bko 26d agoLast I checked usernames aren't a public good. You're part of a social network and they get to set the policy. Sure, you can claim it was a dick move, and maybe it is (although why is a handle so valuable? "muse instagram" now links to the @museband and their followers were transferred). This is just some phony outrage. It's also ironic that the overlap of people that find this offensive but were fine with social media censorship since "it's a private company" is > 0% https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=muse%20instagram https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=muse%20instagram
- adamrezich 26d agoI don't know why you're being downvoted—social media handles aren't, say, domain names, or anything like that.
- loeg 25d agoIt's just non-responsive to the parent comment. Lay people would consider that "stolen," whether the original account holder possessed a legal right to the name or not. GP even quoted it like that to show they were not talking about the legal concept of ownership.
- ben_w 26d ago> Last I checked usernames aren't a public good. You're part of a social network and they get to set the policy. I'd count this as "strong-armed into this". The giants want all the benefits of being public spaces with none of the responsibilities. To use their (US) constitutional right to free speech to sell any ad they want, while using their power (as a private corporation) to ban (or algorithmically censor) unwanted speech. To decide what counts as a "legitimate" name. And if they can manage it, to be so important its use is defacto mandatory, without democratic oversight. I am not a fan of this.
- TZubiri 25d ago>To use their (US) constitutional right to free speech to sell any ad they want First I've heard of this, in what case was free speech used to justify a right to show a specific ad? >while using their power (as a private corporation) to ban (or algorithmically censor) unwanted speech It's actually the opposite, they justify being a public forum for free spech in order NOT to be liable for vetting and publishing the content, they want to be considered a neutral intermediary, not a publisher liable in any way for whatever is published.
- ben_w 25d ago> First I've heard of this, in what case was free speech used to justify a right to show a specific ad? All of them? This is pretty much the default case. If Meta or Google or whoever say "we don't want to show this ad", they're allowed to, it's fine, they're not a public (/government) space who has to follow the 1st's requirement to not-censor. My point is Meta and Google (I assume others but they're the big ones), want to be treated as an entity with first amendment rights, rather than one with first amendment responsibilities, even though they're also trying to position themselves as mandatory or the only space (that matters). > It's actually the opposite, they justify being a public forum for free spech in order NOT to be liable for vetting and publishing the content, they want to be considered a neutral intermediary, not a publisher liable in any way for whatever is published. Sounds like you're talking about section 230; I read there's a lot of misinformation about that. Apparently what it really does is protect (at least some subset of) "good faith" filtering like spam filters. However, what a lot of people today object to is under the (painfully vague to all us software nerds) title of "the algorithm", which is basically editorialising for maximum user engagement/addiction. Anywho, here's a quick search result of one example where they were found to be "that's fine" for terminating ad campaigns: https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/04/tulsi-gabbard-google-free-speech-lawsuit/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/04/tulsi-gabbard-google-free-... And here's one where the courts say, if my understanding of the summary is correct, "Meta is not a state actor normally but sometimes can be": https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21-16210/21-16210-2024-08-09.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21...
- yieldcrv 26d agoNothing in the article about a lack of consent, only assuming. Random source. Conjecture. Random quotes from everyone except the affected parties. Curiously low signal.
- riffic 26d agothat's how it has always worked. The namespace belongs strictly to the service operator and they shuffle names around based on any arbitrary process and it's mostly vibes driven.
- bena 26d agoIf I were the band, I’d do the same. I would not want the potential fallout of the when the AI tool goes sideways. Or stupid requests. Etc Let meta handle redirecting band questions to the proper account.
- whythismatters 26d agoActual title of the article: "Muse Give Up Their Social Media Handle to AI in Ironic Twist"
- Cameri 26d agoThey probably even got compensated.
- BLKNSLVR 26d agoThey manage to do everything in a such a way as to indicate "I have more power than you". Gives me the ick.
- theturtletalks 26d agoWild so many creators are pouring their life’s work into these platforms instead of their personal website
- fwip 26d agohttps://www.muse.mu/ https://www.muse.mu/
- amazingamazing 26d agoIt really isn’t. No one is going to some randos website. Notice how this conversation is here instead of on Engadget itself, comments powered by openweb
- planetafro 26d agoDid you just call the band Muse "some rando"? Ummm, you may want to poke your head out of whatever hole you reside in. :)
- hackernud3s 26d agoIf you're a band, your life's work is the music. The platform is just a communication channel.
- theturtletalks 26d agoTheir website can provide the backbone for concerts, merch, DTC tix maybe? I’m sure the fans that are not on these platforms would appreciate.
- slazaro 25d ago...but they do? I don't really see what your point is. https://www.muse.mu/ https://www.muse.mu/
- loganc2342 26d agoI get what you're saying, but the vast majority of people aren't going to bother going to someone's random website. I think the best you can do in this day and age is put your eggs into as many different baskets as possible, a personal website being included in that. That way, you can maximize eyes on your work and one platform suddenly losing popularity or going to crap doesn't ruin you.
- zdragnar 26d ago"lost" is incredibly misleading, as there's no evidence they weren't paid to hand the handles over.
- amazingamazing 26d agois there evidence that happened (there was payment for handle)?
- zdragnar 26d agoNo, there's no evidence either way. Both are equally possible. The odds of X forcefully handing a handle over from a user to Meta for an AI product seem lower to me than them being paid for it, but that's not based on anything either. Using "lost" in a headline is therefore misleading, as it implies a lack of consent where there is no actual knowledge that is the case.
- edoceo 26d agoSlack couldn't get their own handle on Twitter/X
- cortesoft 26d ago> Both are equally possible. I don't think so, because if it was involuntary from Muse the band, surely they would post something about it. They would get a ton of publicity and goodwill for shit talking Meta, and the fact that they aren't makes it much more likely that they were paid for it.
- zdragnar 25d agoYou're right, I was thinking in my head "equally possible based on the information presented" but didn't write it out. Were I a betting man, I'd put money on them being paid to transfer the name rather than X screwing over a well known band for the benefit of their own competition, Meta.
- deleted 26d ago
- incanus77 26d agoOne of my absolute favorite apps similarly likely got a bid to change. https://allume.com/allume-faq/ https://allume.com/allume-faq/
- LoganDark 26d agoNot disclosing how much they were paid... I see that as incredibly dishonest and scummy. Sure "an opportunity regarding the trademark" yadda yadda... empty lawyerspeak that turns me right away.
- jeeeb 26d agoWhy? What business is it of yours? They were probably under an agreement not to reveal the buyer or amount. Meta in turn probably wouldn’t have wanted news to get out and people forerunning them to claim other online properties just to sell them back.
- LoganDark 26d ago> They were probably under an agreement not to reveal the buyer or amount. I guess they could've, I dunno, said so then? Now that, obviously, everyone knows what happened...
- deleted 26d ago[deleted]
- sippingabonedry 26d ago> The exact circumstances surrounding the changes aren't clear. The exact circumstances are that they likely paid them a shitload of money.
- amazingamazing 26d agoYou base this off what? We really live in a post truth society where innocent asks for evidence supporting a claim are discouraged. I am not saying it stolen, merely asking if there is any proof it was bought. And no, “oCcAms rAZOr” is not evidence.
- vmg12 26d agomy reason for believing they were paid is that the band has not been making a stink about it
- lazyasciiart 26d agoKnowing that people are willing to exchange social handles for money.
- edoceo 26d agoMany times that's against the TOS? And the names/handles belong to the site not the user anyway. I've seen these deals happen too.
- deleted 26d ago[deleted]
- csallen 26d agoThis comment and others like it are wild to me. Since when was the default to assume malicious activity and victimization, and then to ask for proof otherwise? Obviously we should do the reverse. There should be evidence of theft rather than assuming theft as the baseline. For starters, if the band's handles were taken non-consensually, then the least we should expect is a public complaint from said band. This is doubly true in a world where social media handles are routinely bought, sold, and traded. And triply true where the supposed victim of this crime is an incredibly popular group of people with an extremely massive platform, and it's 99.9999% likely that Meta knew this going in.
- Terr_ 26d agoReminds me of Musk "stole" the @X and @e Twitter handles from users.
- TZubiri 26d agowell he owns tiwtter, and therefore the handles and their URLs, so the quotes are aptly placed.
- Terr_ 26d agoI would focus less on "it's not technically a crime so the quotes should be there" part, and more on how "["stolen"] is more accurate than [reallocated] because it's a dick-move of betrayal against users and a worrying violation of norms". Kind of like if the Example Community is in an uproar because Alice took a baseball-bat an "murdered" her neighbor Bob's dog. Carol's "helpful" note that it isn't homicide may not be received the way she expects.
- TZubiri 25d agoEquating taking a social media handle with bloody violence against an animal is so weak it doesn't merit an answer. > "it's not technically a crime so the quotes should be there" Not only is it not a crime, but it's not even a civil breach of contract. Get some perspective
- Terr_ 25d ago> Equating taking a social media handle with bloody violence against an animal is so weak it doesn't merit an answer. Me: "The relationship moving between the pair $A->$B has similarities to the relationship moving between pair $X-->$Y." You: "OMG WTF how dare you say that single thing $X is just as bad as single thing $A!!!" > Get some perspective "Get" analogies.
- ValentineC 26d agoMusk also stole @valentine from me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47856983 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47856983
- sneak 26d agoYou don’t own your username on the systems of other people. People using Instagram usernames as identity is so insane to me. Why does everyone love sharecropping?
- edoceo 26d agoWe don't really own doamin names either
- deleted 26d ago[deleted]
- Loughla 26d agoBecause if my option is to own my own land but not be able to actually make a living off of it or work someone else's land but live, I know which I'm picking. Like it or lump it. People use these sites to sell their things because that's where everyone is. You can scream into a void or you can go about making it. I guess the question is, how much are your principles worth on this issue?
- r3trohack3r 26d agoWhile what you said is literally true, it’s also entirely possible muse sold this exactly as if they’d owned it as an asset.
- comrade1234 26d agoI never heard of muse the band. I never heard of meta's muse either.
- gkoberger 26d agoWell now you've heard of both, so their marketing is working!
- mattgreenrocks 26d agoMuse puts on a killer live show. Don't miss them if they come to town.
- etchalon 26d agoJust the absolute worst company always doing the worst things.
- agnishom 26d agoGreat! Can't wait until a few billion dollars are wasted on a new Meta product which becomes a nothingburger even before it starts
- sitzkrieg 26d agomy original instagram handle was magically overtaken and handed to a celebrity in like 2020. meta doesnt care, employees do it for favors
- gred 26d agoI'm sure somehow it's George W. Bush's fault.