17 pointsby erremerrean hour ago5 comments
  • whythismatters4 minutes ago
    Actual title of the article: "Muse Give Up Their Social Media Handle to AI in Ironic Twist"
  • pavel_lishinan hour ago
    It'd be "stolen" only if Muse (the band) didn't agree to this, or were strong-armed into this.
    • bko14 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

  • bena36 minutes 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.

  • yieldcrv43 minutes 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.

  • riffic39 minutes 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.