logoalt Hacker News

csallentoday at 12:40 AM3 repliesview on HN

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.


Replies

lrvicktoday at 12:45 AM

When a company is known for being malicious by default, to the point of knowingly covering up their ongoing and extensive contributions to teen suicides, it is not unreasonable for people to expect they would steal social media accounts to suit their interests.

They are pure unadulterated evil. They are guilty until proven innocent at this point.

show 3 replies
nosioptartoday at 12:56 AM

It became the default due to how Facebook behaves. If facebook employees even occasionally acted like human beings with an ounce of decency, it might be worth not assuming they're evil sacks of shit.