• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5911 months ago

    As much as this sucks, this person has no rights to their name and never did. Stop using the platform and giving it attention!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3711 months ago

      Yeah, it’s not like they ever bought that name from Twitter so there’s no real argument that they actually own it, even if they’d ever bought the checkmark BS.

      Money and a rename would have been a goodwill gesture, and expecting any goodwill from this version of twitter is insanity.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2711 months ago

      I don’t think anyone is saying they are owed money. But just taking the handle with nothing in return is really not nice.

      They could at least give the guy like Twitter Blue for life or whatever the heck premium is called now.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        411 months ago

        Is that not what the title says? Like, i’m new to Lemmy so maybe i’m confused? Didn’t OP write “He got no money from it :(” in the title?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -2911 months ago

      Haha, me calling it dumb to think they’d be owed money is getting people super angry.

      • girlfreddy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2311 months ago

        Being downvoted is not indicative of voters’ anger. It’s simply showing they don’t agree with you.

        Pulling the victim card is revealing a shit-ton about you tho.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          9
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I see why people use downvoting this way, especially since that was the norm on reddit which a good portion of the base fled from, I find the same issue I had with downvotes on reddit to apply here as well though. I try to advocate down votes to be not out of personal opinion, but a reflection that the content is either useless or harmful to the existing conversation. This allows posts that are actually useful and contribute to the discussion to exist even if they are unpopular to peoples opinion. Just because you don’t like the post, doesn’t mean the post isn’t true or useful, which is why I find that form of downvoting ideology to be harmful overall.

          That being said, I would find the parent comment you replied to as constructive to the conversation…Up until they started egging people on with “is getting people super angry” I wouldn’t call this being downvoted for not agreeing, I would call it being downvoted for not being constructive to the post at hand(as there’s no need to actively try to get people to rage at you with a post like that)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -20
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          So what do users not agree to in my post but do with in this?

          Also, what a fucking Reddit thing to do.