Technology

60087 readers

2636 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

984

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

submitted 1 year ago by SELECTstarFROMreddit@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world

180 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] errer@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] li10@feddit.uk 36 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Terevos@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] grandkaiser@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

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?

[+] anteaters@feddit.de -27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Pika@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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)