The odds of X forcefully handing a handle over from a user to Meta for an AI product seem lower to me than them being paid for it, but that's not based on anything either.
Using "lost" in a headline is therefore misleading, as it implies a lack of consent where there is no actual knowledge that is the case.
I don't think so, because if it was involuntary from Muse the band, surely they would post something about it. They would get a ton of publicity and goodwill for shit talking Meta, and the fact that they aren't makes it much more likely that they were paid for it.
They were probably under an agreement not to reveal the buyer or amount.
Meta in turn probably wouldn’t have wanted news to get out and people forerunning them to claim other online properties just to sell them back.
The exact circumstances are that they likely paid them a shitload of money.
I am not saying it stolen, merely asking if there is any proof it was bought. And no, “oCcAms rAZOr” is not evidence.
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.
People using Instagram usernames as identity is so insane to me. Why does everyone love sharecropping?
Like it or lump it. People use these sites to sell their things because that's where everyone is. You can scream into a void or you can go about making it.
I guess the question is, how much are your principles worth on this issue?
They are pure unadulterated evil. They are guilty until proven innocent at this point.
The fact that one hates XYZ is not a good reason to turn one's brain off and lose the ability to think rationally about XYZ.
In fact, I would argue that there's never a good reason to turn one's brain off and lose the ability to think even moderately intelligently.
Muse is a platinum album winning band that's got 10 albums over 20 years. If this was stolen, they (and their label) would be raising hell.
The problem is, it’s Meta. And like the scorpion said to the frog, “I can’t help it. It’s my nature.”
> 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.
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.
Muse is incredibly popular. They're in the middle of a tour right now, too. Just saw them live two weekends ago. I'm sure there are tons of people who both listen to Muse and will use Muse the AI tool. I'm sure that's true for many of the AI tool's creators, too.
I have younger relatives that love Muse (and Spinal Tap).
Before today, I'd never heard of the muse app that chanhed it's name.
> 4.2 How You Can't Use Instagram. [...]
> You can’t sell, license, or purchase any account or data obtained from us or our Service, regardless of whether such data was obtained while logged-in to an Instagram account.
This includes attempts to buy, sell, or transfer any aspect of your account (including your username); solicit, collect, or use login credentials or badges of other users; or request or collect Instagram usernames, passwords, or misappropriate access tokens.
Seriously, look at that list of all the times Meta stole people's handles. Why would this time be any different?
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.
Read the TOS ... you don't own anything stored on their servers
The name changed happened across platforms including Twitter\X.
Meta doesn’t own X.
Is nobody reading the article? This comment section is crazy.
Everyone is reaching for pitchforks but all signs point to the band getting a huge payday.
BLKNSLVR•1h ago