alt Hacker NewsYou base this off what? We really live in a post truth society where innocent asks for evidence supporting a claim are discouraged.
I am not saying it stolen, merely asking if there is any proof it was bought. And no, “oCcAms rAZOr” is not evidence.
Replies
This is from an app the was also named Muse:
> An opportunity came up regarding the Muse name and trademarks. These have now been sold, so I need to move the app to a new name. Nothing else about the company, the app, your account, or your data has changed.
Probably nothing. But Meta throwing a boatload of money at Muse is probably cheaper and easier than being evil about it.
The problem is, it’s Meta. And like the scorpion said to the frog, “I can’t help it. It’s my nature.”
The fact that the band changed their handles months ago and haven't complained? Occam's razor, man.
my reason for believing they were paid is that the band has not been making a stink about it
Knowing that people are willing to exchange social handles for money.
Well in a decent society you can't take things that aren't yours.
Nobody using Muse the tool knows or gives a fuck who Muse the band is, the band itself is twice their age.
At 32 years a band is reaching Spinal Tap stage and they could probably use the cash. Occam's razor and all that.
This comment and others like it are wild to me.
Since when was the default to assume malicious activity and victimization, and then to ask for proof otherwise? Obviously we should do the reverse. There should be evidence of theft rather than assuming theft as the baseline.
For starters, if the band's handles were taken non-consensually, then the least we should expect is a public complaint from said band.
This is doubly true in a world where social media handles are routinely bought, sold, and traded. And triply true where the supposed victim of this crime is an incredibly popular group of people with an extremely massive platform, and it's 99.9999% likely that Meta knew this going in.