
Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames - sant0sk1
http://blog.stevepoland.com/evan-twitter-needs-a-better-policy-on-usernames/
======
geuis
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 system. You are using a service being
provided at no charge. I'll grant that there are likely to be situations where
your personal Twitter account name conflicts with some big company. However,
on that level if you have a long history of actively using your Twitter
account as your own identity then the weight of evidence is on your side.
Twitter can tell the Big Bad Company "No, pick another name". But if you've
gone out and just registered 50 names, with no activity on them, only in the
hopes that you'll get companies to buy them from you later, go screw yourself.

~~~
rokhayakebe
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 TechQuilaShots. He was sharing ideas on how businesses could take advantage
of Twitter. Only a few read his blog and a fewer followed his advices. So he
did it. Now they want to take that away from him. Not cool.

~~~
kragen
“Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should
totally benefit from it.”

That happened to my wife a couple of months ago; she was trying to use her
laptop on the street to record a protest, and someone saw an opportunity where
most people did not, and ran off carrying her laptop. I bet he benefited from
that.

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.

~~~
jamiequint
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.

~~~
kragen
You fail at reading comprehension.

~~~
jamiequint
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?

~~~
kragen
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.

~~~
jamiequint
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.

~~~
kragen
You still fail at reading comprehension.

You were the one who complained about the discussion not being "constructive,"
not me. (In the _same sentence_ where you called me an "asshole".) I was just
pointing out that you weren't really behaving in a way that often leads to
constructive discussion. Consider it a tip. No charge! Feel free to call me an
"asshole" as often as you please, if that's what melts your butter. Or a
"motherfucker" or "dickhead" if you like. It really doesn't matter to me. But
it probably won't lead to constructive conversation!

I pretty much gave up hope of constructive discussion when you put words in my
mouth, totally failed to understand what I wrote, and accused Twitter of
taking a bribe. So I decided to make fun of you instead.

~~~
jamiequint
I guess you have the right to believe whatever lets you sleep well at night :)

------
Goronmon
I do find the examples he uses somewhat laughable. He lost the name "celtics"
for obvious reasons; it's tie to the Boston Celtics basketball team. But then
he starts fear mongering with stuff like...

 _StockTwits just raised nearly $1 million — their business is based off
Twitter. Definitely one of their assumptions is that they’ll be keeping their
username ‘StockTwits’._

Yes because squatting on a name like 'celtics' is somehow similar to using a
unique username that ties to the user/company who also owns the domain name
that is the title of a service that they are providing?

Sorry, I just don't see the connection there. Just because the people at
Twitter decided your username had better uses doesn't mean that they are going
to arbitrarily start cutting off other usernames.

Of course, then he brings up the "...but others are doing it too!" argument as
if that tactic has ever worked in defending someone's viewpoint...well...ever.

I apologize if I'm coming off harsh, I just really don't see why this
situation is surprising or somehow wrong.

------
jamiequint
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 stop glorifying Twitter for doing the
right thing, they have just as much of an interest in profit as this guy does.

Also, I find it very odd that a community of people who seem to mostly fall on
the libertarian/free market side economically have a big problem with domain
squatters, or people on Twitter attempting to take advantage of an imperfect
market. While I certainly did not like domain squatters when we were searching
for company names, I understand why they exist. The market for domain names is
not efficient because it values all names at the same price
(lsdjhaofiwjleijwa.com costs the same per year to register as google.com) of
course this is wrong. Where there is an imperfect market there is usually
money to be made, with domains you have domain squatters. The problem is
exacerbated by the fact that domains don't tend to lose value so the cost of
holding them is very minimal. Its a market, someone is going to make money off
of demand. To suppose that domains didn't have monetary value and then they
suddenly did when a squatter bought the domain is absurd. They always had
value, everyone was just paying below market rate before.

Don't like market pricing? Go back in time to Communist Russia.

~~~
GHFigs
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 made a stupid mistake in thinking that he owned something that he
didn't? Your tangent on domain squatters is irrelevant, given that the rules
of each system are completely different. Twitter usernames are not a free
market, and it is utterly stupid to have thought that they were.

~~~
jamiequint
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.

~~~
GHFigs
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.

~~~
boucher
Why aren't the celtics stupid for assuming they own that same right?

In fact, he's _not_ assuming he owns it. He's just pissed that his twitter
account was taken away for a pretty lame reason.

~~~
GHFigs
You don't get it. The Celtics don't own it either, and they'd be stupid to
think they did. Twitter does. However:

"We reserve the right to reclaim usernames on behalf of businesses or
individuals that hold legal claim or trademark on those usernames." --
<http://twitter.com/terms>

That gives them a pretty good reason to think it's OK to ask Twitter for the
name. Bear in mind that Twitter has this right whether it is in the TOS or
not, and that they likewise have the right to _not_ reclaim usernames on
behalf of trademark holders. If the situation had not been one where the user
was obviously using the name to reference the trademark, maybe they wouldn't
have.

And yes, he was making the assumption that he owned the names. How else can
you complain that you've been deprived of something valuable that it was your
right to have if you don't believe you own it?

------
GHFigs
In summary, he's saying they need a better policy (i.e. more clearly defined
rules), so that he can game the system better. Classic webcockery.

Sorry, chap, but the Terms of Service do not state that Twitter will guarantee
your business model, and you're an idiot for thinking that you "owned" the
name in the first place.

------
AndrewWarner
This issue isn't unique to Twitter. Anyone who's building a site today is
going to have these issues. We need some clever solutions here.

~~~
dsims
What if they allowed duplicate names? Navigating to twitter.com/username would
then display everyone with that name (like how Wikipedia handles it). The
chances that you are following more than one person with the same name is
pretty slim. If that does happen, then you pick which one gets your @ replies.

~~~
johns
I wouldn't want my competitors sharing a username with me.

~~~
kragen
Because you worry there wouldn't be a unique way to link to you, or because
you don't want your potential customers to know who thinks they're your
competitor, or because you're worried people would get confused?

------
imp
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>

~~~
GHFigs
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-launched-
spor...](http://blog.stevepoland.com/first-twitter-bots-launched-sports-teams-
weather-stock-quotes/)

~~~
imp
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.

------
subpixel
I disagree - I don’t think Twitter is going down a slippery slope. I think
they’re making a sincere attempt to make their service as authentic and as
useful as possible.

The subtext is that a Twitter username suggests identity (in fact that’s the
underlying magic of Twitter) and that the service on the whole becomes less
useful as identity becomes fractured.

It may well come to pass that they need to set up a more stringent system to
analyze conflicts (e.g. what if your last name and user name were knicks and
your twitter feed was not about basketball?).

------
johnrob
If you don't like the rules, then don't play in twitter's walled garden.

------
wmf
Creating a new namespace is bad, because you renew the same old disputes that
people have fought over in the old namespaces. Creating a new _flat_ namespace
is worse, because it intensifies the disputes.

DNS exists and at least it has a dispute resolution process; let's use it.
(see Laconica)

~~~
kragen
DNS's dispute resolution process is pretty badly broken, don't you think?

~~~
wmf
I think there is some hope for the UDRP. OTOH Twitter is completely
unregulated. Between corporatism and benevolent dictatorship, it's a tough
decision.

------
aditya
If you don't like what Twitter is doing, leave.

Twitter is a business, just like any other, ultimately, they own all the
usernames, you're just using them, if they see a better way to assign a
username, why would they not chose it? You're getting value out of the twitter
network, and twitter has every right to do what makes more sense to them. If
users don't like the decisions Twitter is making, they will leave and then
Twitter can feel sorry for screwing it up.

I don't know why people expect to use a free service like they are owed
something. If you were paying for your username, it would make sense, but
you're not, so shut up (tongue-in-cheek)!

~~~
zack
While on one hand you make a point, on the other hand, perhaps this article
can simply be considered community advice to Twitter: if Twitter wants to
protect the stability of its platform then perhaps it should consider more
explicitly stating its Terms of Service with respect to username ownership.

------
designtofly
I would advocate a system similar to that used in trademark infringement
cases.

From <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm>

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue
subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125. The
standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a
trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it
is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to
the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are
likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors,
including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3)
the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the
similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by
the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent.

I would say that in this case, the OP's argument fails in just about all of
those factors listed above. The true trademark holder has exclusive rights to
market their product as they see fit.

------
jwr
So, is that a twitter name squatter whining?

