[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?