alt Hacker NewsDon't be so generous in your assumptions. Meta simply stole the username because they could, and gave the old owner nothing in return. Or if they were lucky, maybe the band got a few Meta branded t-shirts, as was the case for one of the other victims from the article.
Seriously, look at that list of all the times Meta stole people's handles. Why would this time be any different?
Replies
Aurornis • today at 1:08 AM
> Meta simply stole the username because they could, and gave the old owner nothing in return.
The name changed happened across platforms including Twitter\X.
Meta doesn’t own X.
Is nobody reading the article? This comment section is crazy.
➕ show 2 replies
00ze • today at 1:04 AM
"The old owner" was $platform
Read the TOS for these services ... you don't own anything stored on their servers
➕ show 1 reply
If it happened across multiple platforms (of different owners) and the band themselves are not complaining, months after the rename, it seems quite likely.
Note that if this was done against the band's will it would be fantastic publicity for them to say so. Everyone would be on their side.
Meta probably reached out to them to remove any uncertainty around sharing the Muse trademark, and this was included in the deal. The band themselves didn't lose any followers, it was a rename. They might have asked for a clause not to talk about the deal.