← Back to context

Comment by ValentineC

14 hours ago

My @valentine got changed to @valentine_ without my consent.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150822195811/twitter.com/valen...

https://twitter.com/valentine_

(If any lawyers read this and feel up for taking this on contingency, I don't think I'm difficult to contact.)

He probably had plans to use it for some sort of Ender's Game crap but then realized that grok wasn't smart enough to do it.

  • More likely is that they took a bunch of good usernames to sell - if you pay for their most expensive subscription one of the features is that you can rent a better username now.

Turns out that when you are using some oligarch's platform, you don't own jack.

This is digital feudalism, and the billionaires have seized the means of communication.

  • Billionaires have always owned the means of communication (just look at the Salzbergers, Murdochs, etc).

    Digital decentralized protocols (smtp, http, etc) were the first time this wasn’t true. But you [we] voluntarily moved your communication off of open internet protocols onto private ad-based platforms.

    Of course you don’t own anything there, you never did. The billionaires didn’t “seize” anything. You happily sold yourself out for a few clicks of less friction and an easier shot at digital fame by going “viral” on social media company land.

    If this isn’t a much bigger indictment of the collective (who after decades still could not agree on a non-elitist, human understandable protocol that didn’t require a CS degree to use) than it is of the entrepreneurs who solved all the problems the collective refused to, I don’t know how else to get though to you.

Did you actually own it though, per their TOS? What title was granted, if so? Also, and no offense intended truly, I think your having a grand total of 2 followers after 19 years was apart of their risk calculus in this seizure.

  • Twitter's official position is that accounts/usernames are not assets of their users (this isn't an Elon-era argument, from what I understand). I found this out when they argued in Alex Jones' bankruptcy hearings that his account should not be repossessed/auctioned off, an argument Alex supported since that's where he's been moving his audience over to to keep the cash rolling in no matter what happens.

    https://fortune.com/2024/11/27/x-twitter-elon-musk-account-o...

  • > Also, and no offense intended truly, I think your having a grand total of 2 followers after 19 years was apart of their risk calculus in this seizure.

    My account was hijacked via domain/DNS takeover around the time it was acquired by fElon (due to both Crazy Domains and Twitter support's incompetence — both parties removed 2FA from my accounts, even despite me telling Crazy Domains specifically never to do so). I managed to recover both accounts after kicking up a fuss, but the hijacker was midway through an 3rd party account wiping script, and I'd lost all my followers because of that.

    I had 33,300+ tweets in 2015, and a lot of that was private interaction with friends.

  • It can’t be that hard for you to think of something digital that you (don’t) own and how you would feel if a comparable situation happened to you.

    A TOS isn’t some magical shield from legitimate complaints and scrutiny any more than “it’s the law” makes something morally right.