So you think you own your Twitter name?(ac31004.blogspot.com)
ac31004.blogspot.com
So you think you own your Twitter name?
http://ac31004.blogspot.com/2011/03/so-you-think-you-own-your-twitter-name.html
19 comments
If you're not willing to state your reasons for assuming that the source is "slightly suspicious looking", then why bother writing it?
As for people somehow thinking they have the right to use Twitter's services like property - this is actively encouraged by Twitter themselves. They have an entire website dedicated to teaching its users how to develop their accounts as official representatives of their organizations/businesses/brands. You can check it out at http://business.twitter.com/.
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 intentions, nor were they given any due notice, so that they may inform their followers and communicate alternative plans to keep in contact with them. They were simply cut off.
Those _are_ reasonable expectations.
As for people somehow thinking they have the right to use Twitter's services like property - this is actively encouraged by Twitter themselves. They have an entire website dedicated to teaching its users how to develop their accounts as official representatives of their organizations/businesses/brands. You can check it out at http://business.twitter.com/.
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 intentions, nor were they given any due notice, so that they may inform their followers and communicate alternative plans to keep in contact with them. They were simply cut off.
Those _are_ reasonable expectations.
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.
> 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.
>> 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.
> I know. But that's not reality, that's marketing.
When marketing is based on lies, that's called fraud.
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!"
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!"
> 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
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.
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
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.
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.
>> 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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Why there shouldn't be a reasonable expectation of fairness, i.e. that twitter (or any free service for that matter) will not hand your nickname to another entity? I believe there indeed is an unwritten rule on the Internet, that the nickname should belong to the first person who registered it... I mean, if he didn't violate the trademark at the time of registering the account. Of course, twitter has the right to do it, but still I don't find it normal.
Starting with the first BBSes continuing right through to this day, rule one of the net is: the admin has absolute power. There is a tradition that site owners should be benevolent dictators, an assumption I believe is reasonable as far as private servers are concerned, but which is simply preposterous when we're talking about a multi-million dollar business where users aren't even the ones paying the bills.
So, yes, the "nickname honor code" is an unwritten rule, well it's more of a guideline, a ...suggestion really. The only true rule is rule one, see above.
My larger point is that people think Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Gmail, etc... are basic infrastructure services, and that they are entitled to use them. They pay their ISP fee and believe that includes a Twitter account and the right to use it. I suspect many can't tell the philosophical and technical difference between generic email and Facebook anymore. This leads to a false sense of entitlement and an unreasonable expectation of being treated fairly.
So, yes, the "nickname honor code" is an unwritten rule, well it's more of a guideline, a ...suggestion really. The only true rule is rule one, see above.
My larger point is that people think Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Gmail, etc... are basic infrastructure services, and that they are entitled to use them. They pay their ISP fee and believe that includes a Twitter account and the right to use it. I suspect many can't tell the philosophical and technical difference between generic email and Facebook anymore. This leads to a false sense of entitlement and an unreasonable expectation of being treated fairly.
Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Gmail, etc. whether they charge users a fee or not, all present themselves as basic infrastructure services, with an implied expectation that if you register a name with them, that's as good as having a phone number, and it will not be taken away from you unless the service is discontinued.
Legally speaking, Twitter is probably okay here, but if Facebook or Google did the same thing, I would expect they could be legally liable. Google's TOS for example states:
>We take appropriate security measures to protect against unauthorized access to or unauthorized alteration, disclosure or destruction of data. These include internal reviews of our data collection, storage and processing practices and security measures, including appropriate encryption and physical security measures to guard against unauthorized access to systems where we store personal data.
It's reasonable to assume that people are using Gmail as a verification email for other services, so they could actually be breaching their own TOS by giving someone's username to someone else, since when you've used a Gmail account for even three months, it becomes personal information that should be protected.
Ethically speaking, all services should be doing due diligence when reassigning usernames. This isn't IRC, all of these services are marketing themselves as identity gateways, and reassigning identities without cause borders on outright fraud. In this case of course, they're actually acting as they normally do, trying to make sure that online identities match legal identities, so it's more understandable, and probably protects them from allegations that they're facilitating fraud. But your authoritarian system is ethically dubious, and furthermore unlikely to hold up in a court of law.
Legally speaking, Twitter is probably okay here, but if Facebook or Google did the same thing, I would expect they could be legally liable. Google's TOS for example states:
>We take appropriate security measures to protect against unauthorized access to or unauthorized alteration, disclosure or destruction of data. These include internal reviews of our data collection, storage and processing practices and security measures, including appropriate encryption and physical security measures to guard against unauthorized access to systems where we store personal data.
It's reasonable to assume that people are using Gmail as a verification email for other services, so they could actually be breaching their own TOS by giving someone's username to someone else, since when you've used a Gmail account for even three months, it becomes personal information that should be protected.
Ethically speaking, all services should be doing due diligence when reassigning usernames. This isn't IRC, all of these services are marketing themselves as identity gateways, and reassigning identities without cause borders on outright fraud. In this case of course, they're actually acting as they normally do, trying to make sure that online identities match legal identities, so it's more understandable, and probably protects them from allegations that they're facilitating fraud. But your authoritarian system is ethically dubious, and furthermore unlikely to hold up in a court of law.
>all present themselves as basic infrastructure services, with an implied expectation
you seems to take a mental image created in your head by marketing for a contract fine print.
>Ethically speaking, all services should be doing due diligence when reassigning usernames.
Ethically thinking God shouldn't have created the human race, at least he shouldn't have released such a buggy early alpha version.
you seems to take a mental image created in your head by marketing for a contract fine print.
>Ethically speaking, all services should be doing due diligence when reassigning usernames.
Ethically thinking God shouldn't have created the human race, at least he shouldn't have released such a buggy early alpha version.
> you seems to take a mental image created in your head by marketing for a contract fine print.
Representations given to a user ("marketing") can constitute an implied contract, or at least a cause of action if they aren't fulfilled. It'd be one thing if Google said up front that their service should be considered unreliable, and may be discontinued at any time, or user accounts even arbitrarily given to third parties. But if they claim otherwise up front, that can be at least somewhat legally binding. Not sure how a court case would turn out, but they aren't automatically in the clear.
Representations given to a user ("marketing") can constitute an implied contract, or at least a cause of action if they aren't fulfilled. It'd be one thing if Google said up front that their service should be considered unreliable, and may be discontinued at any time, or user accounts even arbitrarily given to third parties. But if they claim otherwise up front, that can be at least somewhat legally binding. Not sure how a court case would turn out, but they aren't automatically in the clear.
does a phone carrier not retain the right to revoke your number? likewise, don't phone numbers get reused?
If you transfer carriers they're actually required to let you take your number with you, at least in the US.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/NumberPortability/
Now you are paying for the service and if you stop paying for service it can go to anyone, but that's not the carrier's decision. Telephone numbers are federally regulated.
The Wikipedia article on telephone numbers also suggests that the bureaucracy managing them tries to avoid reassigning disconnected numbers if those numbers are still receiving regular calls. And this makes sense, since people receiving messages intended for someone else is bad for operators, and bad for the users.
As others have noted, there may even be regulations [1] that apply here, though Twitter seems pretty safe from a legal perspective, even if ethically they're in the wrong.
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002511----...
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/NumberPortability/
Now you are paying for the service and if you stop paying for service it can go to anyone, but that's not the carrier's decision. Telephone numbers are federally regulated.
The Wikipedia article on telephone numbers also suggests that the bureaucracy managing them tries to avoid reassigning disconnected numbers if those numbers are still receiving regular calls. And this makes sense, since people receiving messages intended for someone else is bad for operators, and bad for the users.
As others have noted, there may even be regulations [1] that apply here, though Twitter seems pretty safe from a legal perspective, even if ethically they're in the wrong.
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002511----...
[deleted]
I don't know how to say I don't agree with your first sentence, because I think that the reasonable thing to expect when dealing with issues like this is that unfortunate things are going to happen quite often.
Twitter has how many tens of millions of users? Twitter doesn't need to be an arrogant, corrupt gangster corporation to screw over people many times a day. With the number of complaints they get, I can only imagine the sort of pressure they feel to develop some sort of standardized process for dealing with these issues with an amount of perceived objectivity.
This seems very much like the iOS App Store situation: any system that is designed to make decisions at a sufficient rate (and at a sufficiently low cost) is going to perpetrate injustices. I am quick to flip the bozo bit on people who see dark conspiracies in these sorts of things.
Twitter has how many tens of millions of users? Twitter doesn't need to be an arrogant, corrupt gangster corporation to screw over people many times a day. With the number of complaints they get, I can only imagine the sort of pressure they feel to develop some sort of standardized process for dealing with these issues with an amount of perceived objectivity.
This seems very much like the iOS App Store situation: any system that is designed to make decisions at a sufficient rate (and at a sufficiently low cost) is going to perpetrate injustices. I am quick to flip the bozo bit on people who see dark conspiracies in these sorts of things.
You can expect fairness. You can be disappointed when you don't get it. You shouldn't be surprised when you don't get it.
Why is that a reasonable definition of "fair"? I got their "first", so it's mine? That attitude just means that people go around squatting for names.
Seriously: you should have to earn the usage of your name. Before this stupid world where poorly thought-through websites allow people to, for the remainder of all time (or until the company dies), reserve a name, multiple people could use the same name as long as they didn't cause confusion to the populace (at which point it should be expected that the courts become involved, as that is a matter of fraud).
Regardless, if you want to take the definition of "first == fair", GIRLGEEKS had that name in 1999. Everyone is making it sound like "if you don't get a trademark on your name someone else can take it from you", but that totally ignores the fact that they'd have to get a reasonable trademark /before/ you established your name (and conflicts with your use class, which I believe this situation did, and causes confusion, which I can see this situation also doing).
In this case, the thing people should be bothered about is that GIRLGEEKS has a "DEAD" trademark that was cancelled for its use class: they don't have a trademark, and Twitter made a mistake in honoring it.
Seriously: you should have to earn the usage of your name. Before this stupid world where poorly thought-through websites allow people to, for the remainder of all time (or until the company dies), reserve a name, multiple people could use the same name as long as they didn't cause confusion to the populace (at which point it should be expected that the courts become involved, as that is a matter of fraud).
Regardless, if you want to take the definition of "first == fair", GIRLGEEKS had that name in 1999. Everyone is making it sound like "if you don't get a trademark on your name someone else can take it from you", but that totally ignores the fact that they'd have to get a reasonable trademark /before/ you established your name (and conflicts with your use class, which I believe this situation did, and causes confusion, which I can see this situation also doing).
In this case, the thing people should be bothered about is that GIRLGEEKS has a "DEAD" trademark that was cancelled for its use class: they don't have a trademark, and Twitter made a mistake in honoring it.
> I believe there indeed is an unwritten rule on the Internet
key element in your sentence is unwritten.
yes, it's annoying. but no, you have no right when you're sharecropping. and no, and it's not really clear that the @girlgeeks girl has any more right to that name than the @GIRLGEEKS organization. The larger problem here, the elephant in the room perhaps, is the notion of someone "owning" a name or word, combined with the fact that two or more people can simulateously or independently decide they both want to use that name. One party might be the first to create a Twitter account with it. Another party might be the first to create a Facebook page. Another to create a domain name. Another to write song with that title. Another to write a book or story with that title. Another to release a code project with that name. And so on. Inevitably, there will be conflicts. It sucks, but until/unless we have some central globally-unique-and-authoritative Registry of Names For Anything Anywhere with clear written rules, then, this is just going to keep on happening and happening.
Me? Old news. Knew about this flaw prob at least 25 years ago.
[note to self: there's a startup idea and/or political initiative in here somewhere]
key element in your sentence is unwritten.
yes, it's annoying. but no, you have no right when you're sharecropping. and no, and it's not really clear that the @girlgeeks girl has any more right to that name than the @GIRLGEEKS organization. The larger problem here, the elephant in the room perhaps, is the notion of someone "owning" a name or word, combined with the fact that two or more people can simulateously or independently decide they both want to use that name. One party might be the first to create a Twitter account with it. Another party might be the first to create a Facebook page. Another to create a domain name. Another to write song with that title. Another to write a book or story with that title. Another to release a code project with that name. And so on. Inevitably, there will be conflicts. It sucks, but until/unless we have some central globally-unique-and-authoritative Registry of Names For Anything Anywhere with clear written rules, then, this is just going to keep on happening and happening.
Me? Old news. Knew about this flaw prob at least 25 years ago.
[note to self: there's a startup idea and/or political initiative in here somewhere]
There is absolutely no such rule.
And in fact Twitter is basically legally required to do just as they've done in this case. Sucks, but reality often does.
Takeaway: Having a Twitter name is not a free substitute for having a presence as a legal entity.
Takeaway: Having a Twitter name is not a free substitute for having a presence as a legal entity.
I don't think so. You want to reference the statute? Domain name conflicts, have to go through a more proper administrative and legal process, for example. Twitter could chose to handle it like a domain name challenge, I believe.
Do you want to reference the statute? Domain name conflicts are not addressed by any legal statute that I know of; it's simply been the policy of the registrars from the start because everybody knew it was going to be a problem. Twitter didn't have that foresight.
The key is this: if this new organization GIRLGEEKS has a trademark, they have a trademark. What's Twitter's motivation to challenge that in court? None whatsoever. If the original @girlgeeks wants to challenge it, she's welcome to do so, but the point is that trademark law does exist, a trademark was granted (even though I think it probably shouldn't have been) and somebody has to foot the bill if it's going to be contested, and as much as I'd like to think it's the person with the money, even I don't think that's Twitter's obligation.
Now, if it were me (and it was, for years, at Despammed.com), I'd say, sorry, that name is taken unless you get a court order, leaving the ball in the court where it should have been to start with. Twitter is obviously more craven than I am, but then I was very small and not concerned with paying a staff.
The point is, if you want rights to a name, just using it on some free service is sadly not enough to get them, and complaining that a large organization is not being fair is no substitute, even if true.
The key is this: if this new organization GIRLGEEKS has a trademark, they have a trademark. What's Twitter's motivation to challenge that in court? None whatsoever. If the original @girlgeeks wants to challenge it, she's welcome to do so, but the point is that trademark law does exist, a trademark was granted (even though I think it probably shouldn't have been) and somebody has to foot the bill if it's going to be contested, and as much as I'd like to think it's the person with the money, even I don't think that's Twitter's obligation.
Now, if it were me (and it was, for years, at Despammed.com), I'd say, sorry, that name is taken unless you get a court order, leaving the ball in the court where it should have been to start with. Twitter is obviously more craven than I am, but then I was very small and not concerned with paying a staff.
The point is, if you want rights to a name, just using it on some free service is sadly not enough to get them, and complaining that a large organization is not being fair is no substitute, even if true.
Trademark law does not create a blanket right to use a name in all instances, or to the exclusive right to use a particular string of letters. It creates the right to exclusive use of a mark in a particular "class" of trade so long as you actually use that mark and also show that you have protected it against infringement. (This is also why they're a better system than domain names: it's much harder to "squat" on a trademark.) If the original user of the account was not competing with the organization holding the trademark, not pretending to be them, etc, then the fact they have a trademark is irrelevant.
If you have a consulting company named "thisisourname" and I have a muffin bakery called "thisisourname", we can both have trademarks on that name without any conflict.
If you have a consulting company named "thisisourname" and I have a muffin bakery called "thisisourname", we can both have trademarks on that name without any conflict.
I dunno about the statute - you're the one who claimed there was a law requiring Twitter's behavior. You now seem to acknowledge that they DO NOT have to surrender account names merely because someone asserts a trademark claim.
I was pointing out that the domain name process also does not require that a domain owner surrender a domain merely because someone asserts a trademark claim (I can use another's trademark, in cases where I make it clear I am not causing confusion in the market).
I think we are in agreement about a better policy for Twitter; it should let users keep their account names unless required to transfer them via some legal process. I think it would be OK to show some sort of banner on a disputed account's home page, so that visitors are not confused about the true owner - but I don't think it should be just redistributing them.
I was pointing out that the domain name process also does not require that a domain owner surrender a domain merely because someone asserts a trademark claim (I can use another's trademark, in cases where I make it clear I am not causing confusion in the market).
I think we are in agreement about a better policy for Twitter; it should let users keep their account names unless required to transfer them via some legal process. I think it would be OK to show some sort of banner on a disputed account's home page, so that visitors are not confused about the true owner - but I don't think it should be just redistributing them.
Well greyman did say it was an unwritten rule.
The contact info in your profile is a gmail address. If google decides to wipe your account and give that username to someone else, do you think it's wrong?
How's it different?
This is exactly my point. I don't have the expectation that Google is somehow bound to let me use their service. The moment I start using Gmail, I accept that they can close my account at will, spy on my messages, delete all my stuff. In this case, I don't believe that's going to happen, but if they did I would not be fundamentally surprised. I'm using their service because it's convenient. If they stop offering it, or if something happens that ticks me off, I'll move on.
You would be far more surprised if Google took away your username than if Twitter did. That's the point. Twitter should be held to the same standard that we hold Google to on this matter.
Why should they be? Let's say you have a GMail address, and you use it as the verification email for your bank account. If Google takes your GMail address and arbitrarily assigns it to someone else, that creates a big security issue: now this other person can (for example) get a password reset link sent for your bank account to their new email address.
If Twitter reassigns your username to someone else, it sucks for all the reasons described in the blog post, but I find it hard to see potential security issues or the potential for identity theft. Confusion, yes, but hardly anything more serious.
So yes, I would hold Google to a higher standard than I would Twitter.
I suppose also an examination of their respective Terms of Use documents might shed some light on what you can expect and the standards you should hold, as well.
If Twitter reassigns your username to someone else, it sucks for all the reasons described in the blog post, but I find it hard to see potential security issues or the potential for identity theft. Confusion, yes, but hardly anything more serious.
So yes, I would hold Google to a higher standard than I would Twitter.
I suppose also an examination of their respective Terms of Use documents might shed some light on what you can expect and the standards you should hold, as well.
If the email addresses infringes any law (trademark or otherwise), that require Google to take some action on it, I'd understand (and agree!)
Disclaimer: I'm going to assume this really happened, even though it's coming from a slightly suspicious looking Blogspot address, the description itself looks believable.
The google results for "girlgeeks twitter" are different from the twitter account. (e.g. Twitter lists no personal name, google does. Twitter has no lists, google does) This difference in information supports the idea that the twitter account has recently completely changed.
The google results for "girlgeeks twitter" are different from the twitter account. (e.g. Twitter lists no personal name, google does. Twitter has no lists, google does) This difference in information supports the idea that the twitter account has recently completely changed.
I'm curious if there's actually stats on blogspot blogs being unreliable or spammy? How does it compare to wordpress blogs, etc? Because unless there's data to back this up, I find this an unreasonable prejudice. I do find some quality blogs out there running on blogspot time to time.
It's not about Blogspot. Come on, the adress is ac31004.blogspot.com for crying out loud and there is very little content actually on the site. Those properties ought to set off some flags in the seasoned web user's brain. In this case, these flags were false positives, and I acknowledged as much in my comments.
The blogspot account has been active since July of 2010 (last year), and has over 26 different postings (an average of more than 2 per month). Most of the articles are about a technology HNers are interested in such as Apache Cassandra.
From this particularly cursory perusal I do not think that it raises any flags.
I do not, as a matter of order, hold a blogs name against it.
From this particularly cursory perusal I do not think that it raises any flags.
I do not, as a matter of order, hold a blogs name against it.
I'm the author of the blogspot, For the record, ac31004 is a module in internet programming I teach at the University of Dundee. Hence the odd name.
Its true. I follow both the blog poster and the person who had their username taken from them.
I came to the same conclusion, otherwise I wouldn't have written the post at all. However, it's a blog with a spammy looking address and very few articles in it. I didn't mean this to be an attack on the author, it's just a first impression that gave me pause.
The blogger is a University lecturer. The address looks spammy because it's the name of a course module. It's not obvious though, so I thought I'd clear it up.
"We're not even Twitter's customers. Advertisers are Twitter's customers."
There's a saying: "If you're not paying for the product, you ARE the product."
There's a saying: "If you're not paying for the product, you ARE the product."
"Rather, it's that people think they somehow have a right to use Twitter's services and accounts like they were their property."
Users think that the site is granting them this right when they sign up and select a name. I don't see it as "entitled" thinking at all. It seems to be a reasonable assumption, more so for paid services than for Twitter or Facebook.
Users think that the site is granting them this right when they sign up and select a name. I don't see it as "entitled" thinking at all. It seems to be a reasonable assumption, more so for paid services than for Twitter or Facebook.
[deleted](1)
It's in Twitter's every right to do exactly what was done here.
However, it does make a twitter @name a whole lot less certain though.
It would be in Twitter's best interest to have a policy for disputes so there is no uncertainty.
However, it does make a twitter @name a whole lot less certain though.
It would be in Twitter's best interest to have a policy for disputes so there is no uncertainty.
I'm @philjackson (my name being Phil Jackson, obviously) and there's a Phil Jackson who's prominent in the world of basketball. I've often wondered, if basketball Phil Jackson went to Twitter and said "I want @philjackson", would they give it to him?
That would be troubling. It's one thing to let a major brand take a name back from some schmoe using it for no reason, but that's your actual name. Jackson could easily go by CoachPhilJackson and be found.
It's very likely they would if he asked. Celebrities and business bring huge traffic to Twitter and it's in Twitter's best interest to have more of them sign up. Some might think it's also in their best interest not to screw their users, but sadly it appears Twitter is moving towards Bieberfest as opposed to meaningful conversation. How many Bieber fans care if your name is taken from you?
it appears Twitter is moving towards Bieberfest as opposed to meaningful conversation
Honestly though, the medium suits Bieberfest a lot better than it suits meaningful conversation. It's tough to have a good conversation in less than 140 characters. I'm not surprised they went with the angle that's better marketing/money, either.
Honestly though, the medium suits Bieberfest a lot better than it suits meaningful conversation. It's tough to have a good conversation in less than 140 characters. I'm not surprised they went with the angle that's better marketing/money, either.
Just because it is within the rights of Twitter to be a dick doesn't mean that it _should_ be a dick, and from where I am standing, Twitter is currently acting like a dick.
Twitter and the person who stole the username. The original girlgeeks even helped them set up and knows them.
Ouch, that's a lot worse than somebody independently registering a trademark as an organization and then getting the name from Twitter.
exactly: legal != moral
We need a way to own our online persona's. We have one, it's called an email address at a domain that you registered.
Unfortunately, we don't have an analogous mechanism for instant message traffic. Actually we do, it's called a jabber server on a domain that you registered.
But we don't have a way to publish our short, trivial thoughts to the world, and still maintain ownership of our identity. But, really, we do. It's called RSS.
People should publish their "tweets" via RSS feeds from their registered domain name. You could "follow" people by subscribing to their RSS, and you could "tweet" with a front end on your phone/computer that looks exactly like your current twitter client, but is linked to your RSS feed.
An open source library that made all this easy could be written, for the geeks, and for the non-geeks, there would be services that popped up that would host for you, but since the domain name is still in your name, you can move to another hosting provider at will.
Now, how to get everybody to switch?
Unfortunately, we don't have an analogous mechanism for instant message traffic. Actually we do, it's called a jabber server on a domain that you registered.
But we don't have a way to publish our short, trivial thoughts to the world, and still maintain ownership of our identity. But, really, we do. It's called RSS.
People should publish their "tweets" via RSS feeds from their registered domain name. You could "follow" people by subscribing to their RSS, and you could "tweet" with a front end on your phone/computer that looks exactly like your current twitter client, but is linked to your RSS feed.
An open source library that made all this easy could be written, for the geeks, and for the non-geeks, there would be services that popped up that would host for you, but since the domain name is still in your name, you can move to another hosting provider at will.
Now, how to get everybody to switch?
And x years down the line we'll see "so you think you own your domain name?" Actually, we've already seen articles like that. It's just more difficult (but not impossible) to lose your domain name for trademark reasons.
Or government intervention.
i personally like the nissan.com fight (10+ years).
It certainly appears that as far as these companies are concerned, users are owed nothing and developers are owed nothing. We're just stepping stones on the way to an IPO or exit.
Plenty of micro business owners have found this out the hard way on sites like Etsy or eBay, for instance - they might think that the shop is theirs, and put the URL on their business cards, promote it at craft shows, on their cars, in expensive promotional graphics. All it takes is one idiot admin to close your account, and it's gone (Etsy in particular has notoriously poor practices regarding closing customers accounts, going back for years. There are plenty of of customer service horror stories there. eBay has a long history of NARUing sellers also). I've heard stories about flickr recently, too, deleting accounts - people lose photos, messages, contacts going back years and the company responsible simply doesn't care.
The only thing to do is to have your own domain, own website, use open source software, and know what you're doing technically or be close to someone who does. The only people who can take that away from you is courts or the government. This is also why we need networks that work like Diaspora vs. ones that work like Facebook.
Plenty of micro business owners have found this out the hard way on sites like Etsy or eBay, for instance - they might think that the shop is theirs, and put the URL on their business cards, promote it at craft shows, on their cars, in expensive promotional graphics. All it takes is one idiot admin to close your account, and it's gone (Etsy in particular has notoriously poor practices regarding closing customers accounts, going back for years. There are plenty of of customer service horror stories there. eBay has a long history of NARUing sellers also). I've heard stories about flickr recently, too, deleting accounts - people lose photos, messages, contacts going back years and the company responsible simply doesn't care.
The only thing to do is to have your own domain, own website, use open source software, and know what you're doing technically or be close to someone who does. The only people who can take that away from you is courts or the government. This is also why we need networks that work like Diaspora vs. ones that work like Facebook.
I found the statement made by the other side insightful: http://www.girl-geeks.co.uk/statement/Girl%20Geeks%20Stateme... [pdf]
"Just for the record, I have personally sacrificed personal savings and a full time salary for the last few years for this cause Girl Geeks. I certainly did not do any of this for self-promotion or gain and believe in supporting those who need it 100%."
She done a pretty good job of promoting herself in the response.
"Just for the record, I have personally sacrificed personal savings and a full time salary for the last few years for this cause Girl Geeks. I certainly did not do any of this for self-promotion or gain and believe in supporting those who need it 100%."
She done a pretty good job of promoting herself in the response.
It is insightful, but still, she's only addressing a small part of the problem. The larger issue here is that Twitter facilitate this kind of activity. It should have been resolved between the two parties.
She should never have contacted Twitter to commandeer a @username. Saying you did it on "[advice] by legal councel" is _not_ an excuse. She can't hide behind that. Everybody makes sacrifices in life for their causes. That is not an excuse. Lots of people are passionate and genuine. That is not an excuse.
I'm glad she apologised. If she genuinely wishes to resolve this, I've got a suggestion. Return the username.
She should never have contacted Twitter to commandeer a @username. Saying you did it on "[advice] by legal councel" is _not_ an excuse. She can't hide behind that. Everybody makes sacrifices in life for their causes. That is not an excuse. Lots of people are passionate and genuine. That is not an excuse.
I'm glad she apologised. If she genuinely wishes to resolve this, I've got a suggestion. Return the username.
Their DNS is broken. :-(
Seems like this is a violation of Twitter's obligations under the ECPA to ensure that someone's private communications are not delivered to a third party.
Only the username was taken over. The account itself is still owned by the original user (just with a new username). Nothing private would have been transferred.
DMs and @mentions will now be redirected to the new account until the original user is able to send the change of username notification. There's now a chance, however slim, that a private message will arrive at the wrong person as a result of Twitter's actions.
I'm ignoring the question of whether Twitter should be a medium for private communications.
I'm ignoring the question of whether Twitter should be a medium for private communications.
You're looking at this from the wrong angle. A DM sent to girlgeeks will be delivered to girlgeeks, exactly as the sender specified... much in the same way that a postal carrier will deliver private snail mail to a street address even if the intended recipient has already moved. Unlike snail mail where you can address a specific individual by name (thus making it illegal for someone else to open it) Twitter is the equivalent of "Dear Occupant" and whoever is at that address can open it.
you can't send DMs to a non-follower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Priva... is US law, does this apply to protect people in Scotland?
It may not apply to Scotland, however it /should/ apply to Twitter, which is based in the USA AFAIR
No, why on earth would you ever think that? I don't own my street address, SSN, Prison ID, don't even own my given name.
> I don't ... even own my given name.
Sure, but I bet you'd be pissed if N. J. Harman, LTD demanded that your change your name to avoid confusion, and could enforce their demands.
Sure, but I bet you'd be pissed if N. J. Harman, LTD demanded that your change your name to avoid confusion, and could enforce their demands.
are there no legal restrictions or implications surrounding naming your child after a registered trademark?
Not as far as I'm aware of, though in some countries the authorities have some oversight of names, so you might be stopped from naming your child Pepsi Microsoft or other silly things.
More to the point, there are laws governing what names you can trade under. For example in the UK I think (this isn't my field, info could be wrong/out of date) sole traders and partnerships can legally trade under a personal name - so if your name was McDonald you could run a restaurant under your real name, but you'd probably have to be careful to always carefully list it as J. McDonald (London) or similar to avoid infringing McDonald's trademarks.
More to the point, there are laws governing what names you can trade under. For example in the UK I think (this isn't my field, info could be wrong/out of date) sole traders and partnerships can legally trade under a personal name - so if your name was McDonald you could run a restaurant under your real name, but you'd probably have to be careful to always carefully list it as J. McDonald (London) or similar to avoid infringing McDonald's trademarks.
Prison ID, that's a nice touch.
One thing the comments here haven't addressed is how Twitter's behaviour in this case compares with how such things have traditionally been dealt with on the Internet. I think there's a reasonable expectation that big Web companies act in a way compatible with the rest of the Net even if they are for-profit.
Consider the Nissan Computer Corporation website: http://www.nissan.com/
Or read about when a company called GAIL tried to take gail.com off a woman named Gail: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006...
Now obviously girl-geeks is not a personal nickname, nor apparently was it previously the name of any sort of registered company or other entity, more of an ad-hoc sort of thing. Given that someone later formed a company with this name and trademarked it, should they get the rights to that Twitter name? Would they be able to take girl-geeks.com off a previous owner who was using it in good faith?
My suspicion is that they wouldn't, and Twitter's behaviour is bad netiquette.
Consider the Nissan Computer Corporation website: http://www.nissan.com/
Or read about when a company called GAIL tried to take gail.com off a woman named Gail: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006...
Now obviously girl-geeks is not a personal nickname, nor apparently was it previously the name of any sort of registered company or other entity, more of an ad-hoc sort of thing. Given that someone later formed a company with this name and trademarked it, should they get the rights to that Twitter name? Would they be able to take girl-geeks.com off a previous owner who was using it in good faith?
My suspicion is that they wouldn't, and Twitter's behaviour is bad netiquette.
So, the same applies to the "free" web services like gmail and MSN/hotmail? They just can take your username and give it to someone else?
OF COURSE THEY CAN!
It boggles my mind that anyone would seriously need to ask that question.
Entitlement much?
Yes, it would not be nice of them to do it. Yes, it could be bad for their image and ultimately even their business to do it. No, they shouldn't do it.
But they can, and it's not illegal.
It boggles my mind that anyone would seriously need to ask that question.
Entitlement much?
Yes, it would not be nice of them to do it. Yes, it could be bad for their image and ultimately even their business to do it. No, they shouldn't do it.
But they can, and it's not illegal.
> But they can, and it's not illegal.
If it's just shutting down an account, probably true. But if GMail started giving people's email accounts to other people, which would allow other people to start receiving their bank statements, business correspondence, password resets, etc., I don't think it would be an open/shut case. Courts would likely want to do something about it, and there are various legal theories that are broad enough to potentially be employed, e.g. detrimental reliance on representations, tortious interference, or contributory negligence.
Consider an extreme case: someone is using GMail for their business. Google cuts a deal with their competitor to intercept the business's email and send it to the competitor. Would this be legal? If Gmail accounts and the email in them are unrestricted Google property that it may dispose of as it wishes, then it would be; Google can of course sell its own internal email to anybody it wants. But my guess is that this scenario wouldn't be legal, despite the fact that the business is not paying Google for the email account, and Google owns the servers that are receiving the mail.
If it's just shutting down an account, probably true. But if GMail started giving people's email accounts to other people, which would allow other people to start receiving their bank statements, business correspondence, password resets, etc., I don't think it would be an open/shut case. Courts would likely want to do something about it, and there are various legal theories that are broad enough to potentially be employed, e.g. detrimental reliance on representations, tortious interference, or contributory negligence.
Consider an extreme case: someone is using GMail for their business. Google cuts a deal with their competitor to intercept the business's email and send it to the competitor. Would this be legal? If Gmail accounts and the email in them are unrestricted Google property that it may dispose of as it wishes, then it would be; Google can of course sell its own internal email to anybody it wants. But my guess is that this scenario wouldn't be legal, despite the fact that the business is not paying Google for the email account, and Google owns the servers that are receiving the mail.
It has nothing to do with entitlement, I am pretty sure a lot of people would be surprised to know that their gmail account could be given to someone else at random.
A lot of people are surprised about a lot of things - most people don't know what's in their food, just off the top of my head - but that doesn't mean they have some right to have things they way they thought they were. There's just so far a sense of outrage will take you.
How exactly is that not a (false) sense of entitlement?
IANAL, but I could see a case being made against giving your email address to someone else - seeing as it would result in that someone else receiving your previously private email in the future (e.g. they could easily compromise any accounts registered through the gmail address).
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Of course it shouldn't. No facts should be surprising, but they are. So what do you do about it? You either fix peoples' expectations to match reality, or you fix reality to match peoples' expectations.
Considering that the expectations here seem pretty reasonable, I'd personally rather the latter.
Considering that the expectations here seem pretty reasonable, I'd personally rather the latter.
"Fixing reality" is mathematically impossible. Not all people and groups of people can be given their choice of a unique name in a single global namespace. You can define different conflict resolution schemes, but there will be conflicts and there will be losers and there will be people who think the losers should have won (not least of which, the losers themselves) regardless of what you do.
If I had the money I would trademark unprotected twitter accounts just to have them (temporarily) assigned to me and make more noise about this outrage.
An interesting example related to the ongoing online identity wars. Facebook, Google & Twitter are fighting to get our time investment in their free platforms without giving us the assurance that our investment will be rewarded.
If only the decentralized Twitter proposed a few years ago would have been built, we (users) would have more control about our identity, probably it is a little bit late now.
If only the decentralized Twitter proposed a few years ago would have been built, we (users) would have more control about our identity, probably it is a little bit late now.
Anyone notice that Druge Report got on Twitter, announced the link and their account was @DRUDGE_? Then a day or two later, it was @DRUDGE.
So, this way or another, path leads to decentralized social networks, where your identity is protected with your knowledge of private key.
From the posting: "Last night an organsation called @GIRLGEEKS contacted Twitter to say they had registered trademark for Girl Geeks and wanted the @girlgeeks account for themselves."
The original owner could have pursued similar protection and avoided the problem.
The original owner could have pursued similar protection and avoided the problem.
>The original owner could have pursued similar protection and avoided the problem.
Trademarks cost money - international protection costs quite a lot of money.
Do Twitter accept any registered trademark, like if I've a registered trademark in Afghanistan (say) will they protect me against someone with the same mark registered in the US or in Europe?
It seems that Twitter aren't bound to give a RTM holder the name but the person using it could be sued if they're using it to trade and not making it clear that their goods&services do not originate with the RTM holder.
Trademarks cost money - international protection costs quite a lot of money.
Do Twitter accept any registered trademark, like if I've a registered trademark in Afghanistan (say) will they protect me against someone with the same mark registered in the US or in Europe?
It seems that Twitter aren't bound to give a RTM holder the name but the person using it could be sued if they're using it to trade and not making it clear that their goods&services do not originate with the RTM holder.
The dispute should have been settled between the two users. Twitter had no place in this, unless they were forced to do something as a result of court action resulting from a private dispute, which they weren't.
Based on what the new @girlgeeks holder (Mia Chapman) has said [1], it looks like she talked to Twitter only as a first step, and never expected them to just hand it over with no notice to the previous name holder (Morna Simpson). Also sounds as if Mia's trying to resolve things with Morna mano-a-mano (so to speak) now.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2313593
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2313593
I'm curious - why does stating that pursuing what most businesses would consider normal legal steps to protect their property get downvoted?
Is there a better way to state this? Should I not state this at all?
Is there a better way to state this? Should I not state this at all?
In the U.S. at least, I could see reasonable legal action on the part of the original owner, as she seems to have a common law trademark that would supersede any legal trademark. Maybe Twitter would accept that argument, or maybe you'd have to go to the USPTO and contest the filing (costing more money).
Filing is expensive ($3-400), but it's a thought considering how many of us have online identities that are legally unprotected.
Filing is expensive ($3-400), but it's a thought considering how many of us have online identities that are legally unprotected.
sometimes it feels like we are in illusion about "free" stuffs in internet. Google, Twitter, Flickr, Facebook or whatever.. everything they claim to be free.. they cost your time, they change your mindset, they change the overall you. Nothing is free here, its hardly convincing - yet we just embrace so called free stuffs even without a single thought. More pathetic thing is - these free services don't care who you are - they are just doing their business.
what would have been your decision in such situation if you were Twitter Inc, i am just curious ?
what would have been your decision in such situation if you were Twitter Inc, i am just curious ?
I've identified the namespace "problem" on twitter for a few years now. This is exactly what you get when you put all your eggs into a single service provider's basket.
I think owning the .com should be the new criteria for owning a trademark.
That's a terrible idea. Just think about it for more than one second.
One second is up. I stil don't understand your reasoning. Care to explain?
Who owns whitehouse.com? Should that entity now have a right to "White House" as a trademark and, in the case of this discussion, @whitehouse on Twitter, on the basis of owning that domain?
Yes, but the domain registration process is just another "registration process". The domain one is "modern" (inexpensive, online, self-service), the trademark one (USPTO) is "old" ("manual", "offline", "cumbersome", "expensive").
Why should the government get whitehouse.com - they are entitled to whitehouse.gov. Are you saying governments should have precedence over the priority of other entities?
Since we are discussing here, an international trademark system, I think the properties of the domain registration system are much preferred to the properties of the fragmented and ill-defined international trademark process.
Why should the government get whitehouse.com - they are entitled to whitehouse.gov. Are you saying governments should have precedence over the priority of other entities?
Since we are discussing here, an international trademark system, I think the properties of the domain registration system are much preferred to the properties of the fragmented and ill-defined international trademark process.
I believe what they're trying to say is that .com is a completely arbitrary demarcation.
Are you saying that a .com should have precedence over the priority of a .org, .edu, or .co.uk? Should Harvard Book Store (harvard.com) be somehow entitled to @harvard over Harvard University (harvard.edu)?
Are you saying that a .com should have precedence over the priority of a .org, .edu, or .co.uk? Should Harvard Book Store (harvard.com) be somehow entitled to @harvard over Harvard University (harvard.edu)?
Not to mention that more than one business can have the same name (if they are registered in different categories), but only one person can own a .com.
Examples:
Examples:
Live with Regis and Kelly
Windows (or XBox) Live
Live (the band)
BBC Radio 5 LiveGoogle for "Domain Squatting" or "Domain Parking"
...And that's when domain squatters take over the world.
The surprising thing here is not the obvious injustice or the callousness of the Twitter team. Rather, it's that people think they somehow have a right to use Twitter's services and accounts like they were their property. The same goes for people who build businesses on Facebook and every other monolithic site. I think users need to understand that they are on someone else's turf, and they are subject to whatever the company decides to do. There is no reasonable expectation of fairness, or of free speech for that matter.
That's why building a business on Twitter is foolish. I hear it's done successfully all the time, yet people have to understand this is a very shaky foundation. We're not even Twitter's customers. Advertisers are Twitter's customers. Nobody should be surprised about this, in fact it's a miracle "outrageous" stories don't happen more often.