[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"?

[deweller]

Instagram doesn't specify a time for an account to be considered "inactive".

> An account is determined to be inactive based on a number of things, including the date the account was created and whether the account has been sharing photos, commenting on photos, liking photos and logging in.

https://help.instagram.com/397846020286683?helpref=related&r...

From the article:

> Kevin admits that he didn't have that many followers and didn't post often - but he would use it to like and follow other people's posts.

For all we know, he hadn't logged in or posted anything for a year.

But, still, Instagram should be a good landlord here and at least inform the user before just yanking their account handle.

[Benjammer]

Also probably determined by how much the PR firm is paying who want control of the account.

[stronglikedan]

> whether the account has been [...] liking photos and logging in.

> Kevin admits [...] he would use it to like and follow other people's posts.

If we are to believe him, then his account was not inactive by Instagram's own definition of inactivity.

[dkersten]

By that definition, my account is probably considered inactive... :/

[dev_north_east]

> Also, at what point does an Instagram account become "inactive"?

When rich and famous people want your handle.

[Benjammer]

I think it's more specifically something like this, in case anyone is actually wondering:

"When rich and famous people want your handle bad enough to shell-out money to a PR firm who has spent a boatload on Twitter ads to establish a very favorable business relationship that allows them to procure already-in-use accounts for their clients with a simple request to their account manager at Twitter."

I saw this happen for a small startup I worked at some years back who hired a PR firm and instantly were able to take control of a twitter account that we'd been denied access to for _years_. It was inactive with like 8 porn posts and nothing in the last 5 years, and we sent in formal verification of our trademark, and I also reached out through back channel tech contacts who put in internal requests, and we still got denied 3 times over about a year period. We hired a PR firm to run a marketing campaign for something unrelated to Twitter, and on like day 2 of the relationship, they reached out and basically just off hand said "oh yeah btw we reached out to Twitter and got control of this account for you, I think it matches your company name more directly if you want it!" We hadn't even asked them about it.

[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.

[pavel_lishin]

Are you saying that if another Pavel Lishin ascends to the office of U.S. President, you'd support him just being able to take away my Twitter handle?

[joekrill]

You're suggesting that there is no other appropriate handle they could have come up with beyond "sussexroyal"? And beyond that, what gives one person the right more than any other to a particular handle? Even with your POTUS example.

So yes, I think they should have at least asked first and tried to resolve it amicably.

[skinnymuch]

So if someone becomes president, they should be able to take my handles? Seems worse to be so egregiously unfair.

No one should be able to get something any more than any one else. Of course that’ll never be the case. But why excuse the behavior and even encourage it?