Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

67% Positive

Analyzed from 173 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#muse#social#handle#band#article#media#ironic#random#actual#title

Discussion (6 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

whythismatters31 minutes ago
Actual title of the article: "Muse Give Up Their Social Media Handle to AI in Ironic Twist"
pavel_lishinabout 1 hour ago
It'd be "stolen" only if Muse (the band) didn't agree to this, or were strong-armed into this.
bko41 minutes ago
Last 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

benaabout 1 hour ago
If 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.

yieldcrvabout 1 hour ago
Nothing in the article about a lack of consent, only assuming. Random source. Conjecture. Random quotes from everyone except the affected parties.

Curiously low signal.

rifficabout 1 hour ago
that'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.