
Prince Harry and Meghan took my Instagram name - shivinski
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-47813521
======
clra
Well, it feels weird to defend Instagram, but here we go. The important lines
from the article are these ones:

> _Instagram confirmed to Newsbeat that Kevin 's handle had been changed in
> line with its policy._

> _It allows it to make changes to an account if it 's been inactive for a
> certain amount of time._

I tried going to the guy's new Instagram [1], but couldn't see any posts there
at all. I visited his Twitter [2] instead, and except for a few posts he made
from the exciting run in the last 24 hours, he hadn't tweeted since 2013.

I don't think they did a bad thing here — it's their platform, and they have
some incentive to encourage a more lively and current community. Although it
seems minor, one facet of this might be to help big users reclaim better names
from the huge pool of defunct ones out there, especially given that Instagram
has gotten so big that finding anything that's not a conflict is difficult.

\---

[1]
[https://www.instagram.com/_sussexroyal_/](https://www.instagram.com/_sussexroyal_/)

[2] [https://twitter.com/Sussexroyal/](https://twitter.com/Sussexroyal/)

~~~
drb91
> encourage a more lively and current community

Ahh yes, nothing more lively and current than watching senior citizens coo
over monarchs.

In all seriousness, this is just another step towards instagram being another
bland reflection of the media fun house in which we all live: famous people
get air time to pimp products and movements.

~~~
chrisseaton
> watching senior citizens coo over monarchs

Nobody in this situation is a monarch or ever likely to be a monarch.

~~~
daenz
The term was used incorrectly, but to me it's obvious what they meant: non-
functioning political celebrities.

------
ct0
This goes to show that "your" handle on someone else's platform is never
really yours. The only thing that can not be taken away from you is a domain
name. Start hosting your voice via your own domain.

~~~
smnrchrds
Domain names can be taken away too, especially ccTLDs. It is harder to seize a
domain, but as we have seen time and time again with TPB, Sci-Hub, Wikileaks,
etc. you can lose your domain if entities with enough power and influence want
it seized.

~~~
oarsinsync
I'm not sure that 'especially' applies to ccTLDs any more than gTLDs.
Especially since most (all?) gTLDs are covered by the same jurisdiction as the
.us ccTLD.

~~~
tankenmate
Actually gTLDs are restricted by their contract with ICANN (registry agreement
(RA), search google for "ICANN RA"). ccTLDs however merely give lip service to
domain registration norms, but as there is no contract beyond "this registry
is yours to run" ccTLDs have far more leeway (public pressure sometimes
withstanding) to do as they please. It is for reasons similar to this that a
fair number of ccTLDs don't run EPP for example (running an EPP service is a
requirement in the gTLD contract).

EDIT: further explanation of the gTLD registry agreement

~~~
oarsinsync
In the context of accidental domain loss / attempted hijacking, absolutely
agree on all of your points.

In the case of "entities with enough power and influence", I don't think any
of the ICANN RA requirements make gTLDs any less likely to being seized than
any ccTLDs.

------
covercash
A while back, an Instagram employee stole the handle from my buddy’s wife. The
only reason he got it back was because he had enough clout in the design
community that he was able to get some press about it:
[https://medium.com/@behoff/they-say-nothing-will-
change-5c54...](https://medium.com/@behoff/they-say-nothing-will-
change-5c546662abc0)

~~~
mindslight
Github yanked away my 4 character username to hand it over to some hipster
startup.

My account was 10 years old, no published repos, but consistent other
activity. I don't have the desire nor the connections stir up a twitrage, but
I'll certainly make their behavior known on HN.

These companies point to "inactivity", yet there is never any attempt to
contact beforehand. The policy is merely a thin justification to do whatever
the heck they want to suit corporate or personal employee whims.

That's SaaS (Surveillance as a Sharecropper) for ya.

------
joekrill
We may not have the full story here, but it doesn't seem like Instagram is
disputing that they simply took it. I don't see anyone suggesting that they
even _attempted_ to contact the guy first. Outrageously poor way to handle
things. Also, at what point does an Instagram account become "inactive"?

~~~
6xggd7
And what were they going to tell the guy? It's not like they were going to
give him a choice, or offer him restitution.

Not doing something like this leads to stupid stuff like having POTUS' handle
be "real donald trump" (yes, I know choosing that handle predates his being
POTUS, but you get the idea).

~~~
leetcrew
> Not doing something like this leads to stupid stuff like having POTUS'
> handle be "real donald trump" (yes, I know choosing that handle predates his
> being POTUS, but you get the idea).

I actually find this a charming reminder of the old days of the web. there's a
certain populist quality to the idea that no one is important enough to snatch
a particular username that some commoner took first. I agree situations like
@realdonaldtrump are kind of silly, but it doesn't hurt anyone. anyone who
actually has a large audience has a verified account so there's little doubt
regarding who actually controls it.

that said, we really do need a responsible way to reclaim truly inactive
accounts without enabling "reset my password via email" type attacks.

------
notatoad
The only surprising thing here is that it's not even that good of a name. I
understand platforms yanking the handles of established brands and registered
trademarks, but is "sussexroyal" really as good an Instagram name as Harry and
Meghan can come up with, and worth the negative pr of stories like this one?

~~~
kalleboo
Is this even that negative PR? They're probably going to get more people going
"oooh Prince Harry and Meghan are on Instagram I should follow them" than
being outraged and quitting

~~~
eeeeeeeeeeeee
I don’t think it will fall on them, nor should it, they probably had no idea
this was going to happen.

It’s Instagram’s responsibility either way. They could have said “pick another
name or we can nicely ask the current owner for that one.”

~~~
skinnymuch
They is referring to the Prince and Meghan, correct? They have to know by now
what happpened. They can give the name back. Or not use it at the very least.
Otherwise why shouldn’t it fall on them? Not knowing beforehand isn’t an
excuse to go along with it now.

------
drefanzor
This isn't uncommon. Twitter is another prime example. Their "rules" state
that you cannot (since 2009) make a three letter handle in your username, and
yet @AOC was able to acquire hers. I don't have any problem with this but it
does bring up the fact that there seems to be certain people able to skirt the
rules because of "who they are". What about famous people getting verified on
Twitter when the verification program was supposedly halted? It goes on and
on, but the fact of the matter is "money talks".

~~~
dkrich
When the incentives align they will surely bend the rules. It's in Instagram's
and Twitter's interest to have the royal family and high profile politicians,
respectively, active, happy, and easy to find.

------
NickBusey
Meanwhile, I've been emailing Instagram yearly for many years now trying to
gain control of an account that has had 1 post and 15 followers for YEARS now,
that is squatting on an account name that is the same name as a registered LTD
that I actually own and use. Crickets.

~~~
sudosu-
Try signing your email with: His Royal Highness Duke of HN NickBusey. You
never know.

------
geuis
Twitter did the same thing to me a few years back. I registered @machinima
back in 2006 or so and would semi frequently post links to interesting
machinima videos I liked. After a couple of years I stopped posting for a
while and I guess you could consider the account “inactive” even though my
Twitter client was authenticated and checked it daily for activity via api (or
so I thought). A few years ago I went to post something and found I couldn’t
log in.

Never got an email about it or any form of contact. They just up and gave my
account to the machinima.com company.

~~~
newsgremlin
Have you tried getting it back now that machinima.com is defunct (albeit much
like the original content that got them off the ground)? I think rooster teeth
probably don't want to be associated with that brand anyway.

------
Raphmedia
> "I thought 'What's that all about?' He said 'Look on Instagram' so I looked
> on Instagram and suddenly my handle wasn't @sussexroyal anymore it was
> @_sussexroyal_

They could have at least explained the situation to that person and allow them
to choose a new handle. I would be furious if my handle suddenly had "_" as
prefix and suffix. What next, "@xXxsussexroyalxXx"?

------
anonoholic
The daft thing is there are plenty of alternative names they could have taken,
that are genuinely idle accounts, and arguably better names:

sussexroyals (there are two of them after all) thesussexroyals (more
grammatically correct) thesussexes (as they are commonly referred to in the
press) harryandmeghan (has only posted once since Dec 2017) meghanandharry
(ladies first!)

and so on...

~~~
djhworld
I'd imagine the Prince's staff contacted Instagram to talk about having an
account set up, and maybe suggested the name.

Instagram people were probably star struck, and salivating at the idea of
_millions_ of eyeballs and media interest on the site, that they pretty much
waived anything through.

I'd imagine a lot of the top brass at companies would do anything for a slice
of celebrity/royal action, it's a gold mine and worth a lot more to them than
some peon from Reading who just lurks.

------
bambax
You own nothing. You are nothing.

In the 90s, Mr. Nissan was able to fight and keep nissan.com. That feels like
a thousand years ago. Now everything is governed by private "policies" that
amount to "we can do anything we want".

I don't like the new world at all.

~~~
skinnymuch
Hasn’t Mr, Nissan spent a ton of money fighting? It’s great that it was and is
an option for domains sometimes. But 99% of the time, you’re not going to be
able to fight anyway.

------
some1else
Not cool, but nothing new. Distrokid was blatant enough to brag about it in
his newsletter in 2017. I sent a polite email voicing my concerns, but I never
received more than the auto-reply.

Distrokid email: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/8tw90s0n8urj9j3/distro-
email.png?d...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/8tw90s0n8urj9j3/distro-
email.png?dl=0)

My reply: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ym9oxvwprkqm9ph/distro-
reply.png?d...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/ym9oxvwprkqm9ph/distro-
reply.png?dl=0)

------
sbr464
Somewhat related, I find it unusual that a lot of SaaS companies get you to
choose a subdomain during the trial signup process. Sometimes I just want to
try out a service and kind of feel bad squatting on a somewhat premium
subdomain so easily. I’m launching a product soon and it made me think about
different ways to handle this, especially wrt to shorter (more premium), and
trademark/brand related names.

------
mindcrime
Fuck royalty. The whole idea is stupid. Actually, as far as that goes, fuck
"celebrity worship" in general, royal or otherwise. IMO, too many people spend
too much time worrying about what some "famous" twit is doing.

~~~
14
You and me both can sit and here and wait and see if they break up and chew on
their shared instagram name. I wish them the best but to me they are just
another celebrity couple and any moment could stop enjoying each other.

------
larrik
> What I'm trying to do is keep tweeting therefore they can't take it if it's
> active.

Good luck with that, Twitter has a long history of taking handles on behalf of
brands and celebrities...

~~~
skinnymuch
Even for visibly active ones? Any reference or example?

------
brudgers
[http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-
peascene.php](http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-peascene.php)

------
microtherion
Droit du seigneur for the internet age.

------
pytyper2
That family has been stealing from the plebs for hundreds of years, why is
this newsworthy?

------
IronCoderXYZ
I deleted Instagram a few weeks ago, one of the best decisions I've made.

------
jcomis
It's well known that if you know people at Instagram you can highjack almost
any handle. There is plenty of stories out there documenting the theft of
prime handles like @firstname or 3 character handles.

------
yial
I remember reading about this in their TOS years ago... I think they normally
outline in under taking away names to give to rightful owners. (If you’re name
is @apple for example ).

This seems like a poorly handled extension of that power.

But- truly just an example of how your use, data, name, etc on these services
is really just at their whim.

~~~
UweSchmidt
Who would the "rightful owner" of @apple be? Maybe the one who registered it
in the first place?

Or does that old instinct of defering to power make you want to give in to the
presumptuous request of a large entity?

~~~
benatkin
The word _apple_ has other meanings besides Apple, Inc, but it is a registered
trademark in the USA. Since instagram is based in the USA, it's pretty clear
that Apple, Inc is the _rightful owner_. Whether or not they should have a
trademark on such a common word is a separate question.

~~~
gbear605
It’s only a registered trademark for their business field. For example Apple
Records also has a registered trademark on Apple in the USA. So by your
measure they’re just as valid a rightful owner.

~~~
benatkin
It's pretty obvious what the most well-known trademark is. I don't think
Google would be giving ibm.dev to the International Brotherhood of Magicians
[1]. Here's an example as it pertains to domain names [2]. Of course Instagram
is different and there's much less oversight, but they would probably do
something similar, where they first verify a trademark, and if multiple
parties have the same word in the trademark, determine which.

"2.5 Does putting my trademark in the Clearinghouse mean that I automatically
get my trademark as a domain name in all new gTLDs?

No. The Clearinghouse verifies and maintains information from many
jurisdictions and classes of goods or services, and many parties may have
legitimate rights in the same trademark. Allocation of domain names in a
particular TLD occurs according to the registry policies for that TLD."

1:
[http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:9gr...](http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:9gr6yj.3.9)

2: [https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-
clearinghouse/...](https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-
clearinghouse/faqs)

~~~
toast0
> It's pretty obvious what the most well-known trademark is.

The apple growers association of america?

------
drKarl
We should be pushing for decentralized self-sovereign identity to become
mainstream

------
OrgNet
Someone made an offer on sussexroyal.com yet? it look available...

------
abductee_hg
just imagine what the world would look like if everyone(private person or
company) exercised all the things they can lawfully do at all times.

------
jocoda
No guilty party in this tale. But don't see how you can now use that name
without having some social justice warrior somewhere foaming at the mouth with
righteous indignation.

------
abductee_hg
wow, what a dick-move - even by fb-standards.

------
hervature
Typo in title: should be Prince not Price

~~~
skinnymuch
“Price” is far more fitting.

------
fargo
Love the typo, I guess everything can be bought for a price.

------
vamos_davai
Their platform, their voice. It's not part of public domain. Unreasonable
outrage from the HN crowd.

~~~
robdachshund
Just because you can do something does not make acceptable to all people.

What you are talking about is essentially moral relativism. Most people see
that as dubious.

Just because one entity sees something as right does not make it objectively
right.

Can Instagram do this? Yes. Should everyone be okay with it in virtue of that
ability? That comes down to personal opinion.

------
cwkoss
The concept of royalty in 2019 is so repugnant. Fuck the crown and their
hundreds of years of theft from the people.

------
pavlov
So I guess you don't have any ownership over a URL path component on somebody
else's server when you're not even paying for that hosting. Not particularly
surprising...

