Elon Musk and company take @x handle from its original user. He got zero dollars for it.

SELECTstarFROMreddit@sh.itjust.works to Technology@lemmy.world – 1217 points –
Elon Musk and company take @x handle from its original user. He got zero dollars for it.
mashable.com
265

You are viewing a single comment

As much as this sucks, this person has no rights to their name and never did. Stop using the platform and giving it attention!

Yeah, it’s not like they ever bought that name from Twitter so there’s no real argument that they actually own it, even if they’d ever bought the checkmark BS.

Money and a rename would have been a goodwill gesture, and expecting any goodwill from this version of twitter is insanity.

I don't think anyone is saying they are owed money. But just taking the handle with nothing in return is really not nice.

They could at least give the guy like Twitter Blue for life or whatever the heck premium is called now.

Is that not what the title says? Like, i'm new to Lemmy so maybe i'm confused? Didn't OP write "He got no money from it :(" in the title?

Haha, me calling it dumb to think they'd be owed money is getting people super angry.

Being downvoted is not indicative of voters' anger. It's simply showing they don't agree with you.

Pulling the victim card is revealing a shit-ton about you tho.

I see why people use downvoting this way, especially since that was the norm on reddit which a good portion of the base fled from, I find the same issue I had with downvotes on reddit to apply here as well though. I try to advocate down votes to be not out of personal opinion, but a reflection that the content is either useless or harmful to the existing conversation. This allows posts that are actually useful and contribute to the discussion to exist even if they are unpopular to peoples opinion. Just because you don't like the post, doesn't mean the post isn't true or useful, which is why I find that form of downvoting ideology to be harmful overall.

That being said, I would find the parent comment you replied to as constructive to the conversation...Up until they started egging people on with "is getting people super angry" I wouldn't call this being downvoted for not agreeing, I would call it being downvoted for not being constructive to the post at hand(as there's no need to actively try to get people to rage at you with a post like that)

So what do users not agree to in my post but do with in this?

Also, what a fucking Reddit thing to do.

Crying reddit croc tears in no way helps your cause.

I don't have a "cause". But I see that you have no answer.