Rock band Muse lose social media handles to Meta’s new AI tool
the-independent.com> The exact circumstances surrounding the changes aren't clear.
The exact circumstances are that they likely paid them a shitload of money.
The band has been silent on the matter, which is an extremely strong indicator that they got a boatload of cash in the deal.
Everyone is reaching for pitchforks but all signs point to the band getting a huge payday.
Back in May, the iOS app "Muse" rebranded as "Allume". Their explanation was "An unexpected opportunity came up regarding the Muse name and trademarks, and as a result I'll soon be changing the name of Muse to Allumé."
Funnily enough that is against the Instagram ToS (https://help.instagram.com/termsofuse):
> 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.
YOU can’t , they can.
ToS doesn't constrain the owner.
I'd love to get paid a ton of money to leave their social shitwork for good. Do they have mastodon or bluesky?
I'd suggest building a time machine and going back to register threads.com.
This, especially given the same switch happened with twitter handles as well.
Don'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?
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.
> 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.
This place has become Reddit with how easy it is to farm upvotes for any “evil corpos” take, no matter how clueless or inane.
> This place has become Reddit […]
Not reading TFA (the fine article) has been a noble Internet tradition since (at least) the earliest days of Slashdot.
Oh way before that.
But the mating displays about every company being a conspiracy are about Reddit era, IIRC.
to be fair, Meta is a conspiracy company, probably just not in this particular case
That's what happens when you abuse people's trust for years: they don't trust you.
"The old owner" was $platform
Read the TOS for these services ... you don't own anything stored on their servers
Incorrect. This happened across platforms including X.
I think GP is (correctly) claiming that you don't actually own your account handle on social media services, including X. But I don't think it was a particularly relevant response at that point in the comment thread, and I agree Meta likely bought the usernames from the band on the various platforms.
You 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.
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.
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.
I disagree, this is an unreasonable and almost certainly incorrect thing to assume happened in this case.
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.
I am agreeing it is unlikely it was actually malicious, but it is Meta and they deserve no charity. If it is even a small possibility they did the evil thing, we should all operate on the assumption they did the evil thing anyway until proven innocent.
I hope all the non charitable assumptions they deserve snowball enough to hurt them.
May their stock price burn in hell.
I really really really really REALLY don't like this way of thinking, and I hope that fewer and fewer people adopt it.
Good lord. Please use logic and Occam's Razor this.
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.
That’s not how either logic or justice work.
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.
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.
Knowing that people are willing to exchange social handles for money.
Many times that's against the TOS? And the names/handles belong to the site not the user anyway. I've seen these deals happen too.
my reason for believing they were paid is that the band has not been making a stink about it
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.
> Nobody using Muse the tool knows or gives a fuck who Muse the band is, the band itself is twice their age.
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.
Muse the tool will have been forgotten in a few years and Muse the band will carry on.
I'm sure more people know the band than the tool - I've only heard of it through here and have no desire to learn more.
Makes sense they take the money, they can probably buy back the site in a few years.
Muse is pretty popular, 30 million album sales is not too bad.
I listened to the Beatles growing up, despite them being much more thab twice my age.
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.
> Before today, I'd never heard of the muse app
It only launched two days ago, so.
Then you would know about the trademark beef the Beatles had with Apple for years.
Talk about sour grapes. Muse remains ridiculously popular and I will bet my bank account that there are more Muse fans than slop enthusiasts.
The irony of a highly talented band that have been actually doing the work for over twenty years being pushed aside to make room for Meta's model that promises you won't have to actually do the work.
"lost" is incredibly misleading, as there's no evidence they weren't paid to hand the handles over.
The precedent is from X, which will just take it from you without even bothering to notify you.
First time interacting with journalism? Granted, this is even more slanted than typical.
is there evidence that happened (there was payment for handle)?
No, there's no evidence either way. Both are equally possible.
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.
> Both are equally possible.
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.
You're right, I was thinking in my head "equally possible based on the information presented" but didn't write it out. Were I a betting man, I'd put money on them being paid to transfer the name rather than X screwing over a well known band for the benefit of their own competition, Meta.
Slack couldn't get their own handle on Twitter/X
they’re being poetic in that title, and I thought this was ok, but seeing the comment there I guess people really see evil everywhere they look
One of my absolute favorite apps similarly likely got a bid to change.
Not disclosing how much they were paid... I see that as incredibly dishonest and scummy. Sure "an opportunity regarding the trademark" yadda yadda... empty lawyerspeak that turns me right away.
Why? What business is it of yours?
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.
> They were probably under an agreement not to reveal the buyer or amount.
I guess they could've, I dunno, said so then?
Now that, obviously, everyone knows what happened...
Actual title of the article: "Muse Give Up Their Social Media Handle to AI in Ironic Twist"
Wild so many creators are pouring their life’s work into these platforms instead of their personal website
Have tens of millions of engaged fans or just tens? Difficult choice.
Heard of POSSE? They could post on their websites and syndicate elsewhere. That way, I can access their content thru their website or RSS since I don’t have an Instagram.
LLMs are equalizing this. They use curl and Instagram has dark patterns to stop this. So if you ask a question in a specific niche, LLMs will prefer and refer to users who have their own website.
It’s the same reason popular YouTubers move to Patreon and Nebula once they get established. You never want to solely depend on a platform that can demonetize, or in this situation, take your handle.
Muse might’ve just sold it to them, TBH. I don’t see FB stripping them of it outright. This is not a small band afterall.
I'm old enough to remember when bands did everything on their own sites, complete with message boards. I _really_ miss that. Twitter is just a middle-man nobody wants when you're talking about artists.
If you're a band, your life's work is the music. The platform is just a communication channel.
Their website can provide the backbone for concerts, merch, DTC tix maybe? I’m sure the fans that are not on these platforms would appreciate.
...but they do? I don't really see what your point is.
I get what you're saying, but the vast majority of people aren't going to bother going to someone's random website. I think the best you can do in this day and age is put your eggs into as many different baskets as possible, a personal website being included in that. That way, you can maximize eyes on your work and one platform suddenly losing popularity or going to crap doesn't ruin you.
I and others I know would. Granted we're not the vast majority, but my feeling is that people don't do it nowadays because they've been trained not to. If bands went back to their own sites, I'd say people would follow.
Muse released their 4th platinum album before Twitter was even founded. They poured their life's work into Twitter? That is ridiculous.
You’re right. I was more pointing to artists and creators after Muse that would have it a lot worse if they got their handle taken.
network effect.
Interoperability that POSSE and ATPROTO provide will free us from the network effect. You know what saves us from the network effect? Interoperability.
it's in big tech's advantage to not be interoperable. So we must push legislation to mandate it.
It really isn’t. No one is going to some randos website. Notice how this conversation is here instead of on Engadget itself, comments powered by openweb
Did you just call the band Muse "some rando"? Ummm, you may want to poke your head out of whatever hole you reside in. :)
It'd be "stolen" only if Muse (the band) didn't agree to this, or were strong-armed into this.
Last I checked usernames aren't a public good. You're part of a social network and they get to set the policy.
Sure, you can claim it was a dick move, and maybe it is (although why is a handle so valuable? "muse instagram" now links to the @museband and their followers were transferred). This is just some phony outrage.
It's also ironic that the overlap of people that find this offensive but were fine with social media censorship since "it's a private company" is > 0%
> Last I checked usernames aren't a public good. You're part of a social network and they get to set the policy.
I'd count this as "strong-armed into this".
The giants want all the benefits of being public spaces with none of the responsibilities. To use their (US) constitutional right to free speech to sell any ad they want, while using their power (as a private corporation) to ban (or algorithmically censor) unwanted speech. To decide what counts as a "legitimate" name. And if they can manage it, to be so important its use is defacto mandatory, without democratic oversight.
I am not a fan of this.
>To use their (US) constitutional right to free speech to sell any ad they want
First I've heard of this, in what case was free speech used to justify a right to show a specific ad?
>while using their power (as a private corporation) to ban (or algorithmically censor) unwanted speech
It's actually the opposite, they justify being a public forum for free spech in order NOT to be liable for vetting and publishing the content, they want to be considered a neutral intermediary, not a publisher liable in any way for whatever is published.
> First I've heard of this, in what case was free speech used to justify a right to show a specific ad?
All of them? This is pretty much the default case. If Meta or Google or whoever say "we don't want to show this ad", they're allowed to, it's fine, they're not a public (/government) space who has to follow the 1st's requirement to not-censor.
My point is Meta and Google (I assume others but they're the big ones), want to be treated as an entity with first amendment rights, rather than one with first amendment responsibilities, even though they're also trying to position themselves as mandatory or the only space (that matters).
> It's actually the opposite, they justify being a public forum for free spech in order NOT to be liable for vetting and publishing the content, they want to be considered a neutral intermediary, not a publisher liable in any way for whatever is published.
Sounds like you're talking about section 230; I read there's a lot of misinformation about that. Apparently what it really does is protect (at least some subset of) "good faith" filtering like spam filters. However, what a lot of people today object to is under the (painfully vague to all us software nerds) title of "the algorithm", which is basically editorialising for maximum user engagement/addiction.
Anywho, here's a quick search result of one example where they were found to be "that's fine" for terminating ad campaigns:
https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/04/tulsi-gabbard-google-free-...
And here's one where the courts say, if my understanding of the summary is correct, "Meta is not a state actor normally but sometimes can be": https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21...
I don't know why you're being downvoted—social media handles aren't, say, domain names, or anything like that.
It's just non-responsive to the parent comment. Lay people would consider that "stolen," whether the original account holder possessed a legal right to the name or not. GP even quoted it like that to show they were not talking about the legal concept of ownership.
If I were the band, I’d do the same.
I would not want the potential fallout of the when the AI tool goes sideways. Or stupid requests. Etc
Let meta handle redirecting band questions to the proper account.
Nothing in the article about a lack of consent, only assuming. Random source. Conjecture. Random quotes from everyone except the affected parties.
Curiously low signal.
They manage to do everything in a such a way as to indicate "I have more power than you". Gives me the ick.
Reminds me of Musk "stole" the @X and @e Twitter handles from users.
Musk also stole @valentine from me:
well he owns tiwtter, and therefore the handles and their URLs, so the quotes are aptly placed.
I would focus less on "it's not technically a crime so the quotes should be there" part, and more on how "["stolen"] is more accurate than [reallocated] because it's a dick-move of betrayal against users and a worrying violation of norms".
Kind of like if the Example Community is in an uproar because Alice took a baseball-bat an "murdered" her neighbor Bob's dog. Carol's "helpful" note that it isn't homicide may not be received the way she expects.
Equating taking a social media handle with bloody violence against an animal is so weak it doesn't merit an answer.
> "it's not technically a crime so the quotes should be there"
Not only is it not a crime, but it's not even a civil breach of contract.
Get some perspective
> Equating taking a social media handle with bloody violence against an animal is so weak it doesn't merit an answer.
Me: "The relationship moving between the pair $A->$B has similarities to the relationship moving between pair $X-->$Y."
You: "OMG WTF how dare you say that single thing $X is just as bad as single thing $A!!!"
> Get some perspective
"Get" analogies.
that's how it has always worked.
The namespace belongs strictly to the service operator and they shuffle names around based on any arbitrary process and it's mostly vibes driven.
my original instagram handle was magically overtaken and handed to a celebrity in like 2020. meta doesnt care, employees do it for favors
You don’t own your username on the systems of other people.
People using Instagram usernames as identity is so insane to me. Why does everyone love sharecropping?
Because if my option is to own my own land but not be able to actually make a living off of it or work someone else's land but live, I know which I'm picking.
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?
While what you said is literally true, it’s also entirely possible muse sold this exactly as if they’d owned it as an asset.
We don't really own doamin names either
They probably even got compensated.
I'm sure somehow it's George W. Bush's fault.
Great! Can't wait until a few billion dollars are wasted on a new Meta product which becomes a nothingburger even before it starts
Just the absolute worst company always doing the worst things.
I never heard of muse the band. I never heard of meta's muse either.
Muse puts on a killer live show. Don't miss them if they come to town.
Well now you've heard of both, so their marketing is working!