Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

So someone is complaining that they registered a bunch of names they thought would be monetarily valuable at a later date, and is complaining when the company that provides the service is disallowing him from doing it? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me. I have no sorrow for domain squatters, and that extends to people who grabbed Facebook app names, Twitter names, whatever. Twitter isn't like the DNS system. You are using a service being provided at no charge. I'll grant that there are likely to be situations where your personal Twitter account name conflicts with some big company. However, on that level if you have a long history of actively using your Twitter account as your own identity then the weight of evidence is on your side. Twitter can tell the Big Bad Company "No, pick another name". But if you've gone out and just registered 50 names, with no activity on them, only in the hopes that you'll get companies to buy them from you later, go screw yourself.

I do find the examples he uses somewhat laughable. He lost the name "celtics" for obvious reasons; it's tie to the Boston Celtics basketball team. But then he starts fear mongering with stuff like...

StockTwits just raised nearly $1 million — their business is based off Twitter. Definitely one of their assumptions is that they’ll be keeping their username ‘StockTwits’.

Yes because squatting on a name like 'celtics' is somehow similar to using a unique username that ties to the user/company who also owns the domain name that is the title of a service that they are providing?

Sorry, I just don't see the connection there. Just because the people at Twitter decided your username had better uses doesn't mean that they are going to arbitrarily start cutting off other usernames.

Of course, then he brings up the "...but others are doing it too!" argument as if that tactic has ever worked in defending someone's viewpoint...well...ever.

I apologize if I'm coming off harsh, I just really don't see why this situation is surprising or somehow wrong.

I don't understand why most people here are siding with Twitter. Their TOS clearly say that they don't tolerate impersonation, but running a fan account (or even simply holding a Twitter name and not using it) doesn't amount to impersonation. Why should any company automatically be granted the right to their username on any service? Of course Twitter reserves the right to do whatever is best for their business, but stop glorifying Twitter for doing the right thing, they have just as much of an interest in profit as this guy does.

Also, I find it very odd that a community of people who seem to mostly fall on the libertarian/free market side economically have a big problem with domain squatters, or people on Twitter attempting to take advantage of an imperfect market. While I certainly did not like domain squatters when we were searching for company names, I understand why they exist. The market for domain names is not efficient because it values all names at the same price (lsdjhaofiwjleijwa.com costs the same per year to register as google.com) of course this is wrong. Where there is an imperfect market there is usually money to be made, with domains you have domain squatters. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that domains don't tend to lose value so the cost of holding them is very minimal. Its a market, someone is going to make money off of demand. To suppose that domains didn't have monetary value and then they suddenly did when a squatter bought the domain is absurd. They always had value, everyone was just paying below market rate before.

Don't like market pricing? Go back in time to Communist Russia.

In summary, he's saying they need a better policy (i.e. more clearly defined rules), so that he can game the system better. Classic webcockery.

Sorry, chap, but the Terms of Service do not state that Twitter will guarantee your business model, and you're an idiot for thinking that you "owned" the name in the first place.

This issue isn't unique to Twitter. Anyone who's building a site today is going to have these issues. We need some clever solutions here.

The user name bostonceltics is taken by someone that is doing the same thing and using the Boston Celtics' logo for their icon. Seems like they would have been a better candidate to bully into moving their user name.

http://twitter.com/bostonceltics

I disagree - I don’t think Twitter is going down a slippery slope. I think they’re making a sincere attempt to make their service as authentic and as useful as possible.

The subtext is that a Twitter username suggests identity (in fact that’s the underlying magic of Twitter) and that the service on the whole becomes less useful as identity becomes fractured.

It may well come to pass that they need to set up a more stringent system to analyze conflicts (e.g. what if your last name and user name were knicks and your twitter feed was not about basketball?).

If you don't like the rules, then don't play in twitter's walled garden.

Creating a new namespace is bad, because you renew the same old disputes that people have fought over in the old namespaces. Creating a new flat namespace is worse, because it intensifies the disputes.

DNS exists and at least it has a dispute resolution process; let's use it. (see Laconica)

If you don't like what Twitter is doing, leave.

Twitter is a business, just like any other, ultimately, they own all the usernames, you're just using them, if they see a better way to assign a username, why would they not chose it? You're getting value out of the twitter network, and twitter has every right to do what makes more sense to them. If users don't like the decisions Twitter is making, they will leave and then Twitter can feel sorry for screwing it up.

I don't know why people expect to use a free service like they are owed something. If you were paying for your username, it would make sense, but you're not, so shut up (tongue-in-cheek)!

I would advocate a system similar to that used in trademark infringement cases.

From http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent.

I would say that in this case, the OP's argument fails in just about all of those factors listed above. The true trademark holder has exclusive rights to market their product as they see fit.

So, is that a twitter name squatter whining?