After Domain Squatting, Twitter Squatting

carusoj writes "Squatting on domain names is nothing new, but Twitter has created a new opportunity for squatters, in the form of Twitter IDs. Writes Richard Stiennon: 'Is there evidence of Twitter squatting (squitting?) Let's check. Yup, every single-letter TwitID is taken ... How about common words? Garage, wow, war, warcraft, Crisco, Coke, Pepsi, Nike, and Chevrolet are all taken. My guess is that Twitter squatters have grabbed all of these in the hopes that they will be worth selling in the not too distant future. Of course the legitimate holders of brands can sue for them and Twitter can just turn them over if asked. But, because the investment and risk for the squatter is zero, you are going to see the rapid evaporation of available Twitter IDs.'"

This would assume that Twitter was worth a damn

[Scareduck]

See also [youtube.com]. Lore Sjoberg rips Twitter a new one, but it's only common sense; who frankly gives a damn?

Yet another reason

[Baldrson]

This is yet another reason that in-place liquidation value [ar-int.com], rather than economic activity, should be the basis for taxation.

Slashdot, too

[cerberusss]

What's pretty funny, is that this is the same on Slashdot. For instance I tried a few car brands and these all exist and have extremely low UIDs:
http://slashdot.org/~mercedes [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/~ferrari [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/~ford [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/~fiat [slashdot.org]

But also
http://slashdot.org/~tefal [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/~aga [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/~farber [slashdot.org]
exists so we have a few happy chef-cooks here as well :-)

They're going to be waiting for a long time...

[Anonymous Coward]

... for huge businesses to give a damn about some username on a social networking site that isn't even that popular.

Yep.

[Wolfger]

Chrysler recently announced they were on Twitter, but the name was ChryslerCom or something like that. Squatters beat them to their own name. That's the problem with unique usernames, though. I mean, say your name (because your parents are insensitive clods) actually *is* Chevy... Should you be prevented from being "Chevy" online because a car company holds a trademark on that name? Is it really fair for the courts to just take something away from you and give it to a rich corporation?

Re:Can't say I ever used Twitter

[causality]

So this is pretty much like every other social networking site where you have to pick a username?

Yes, Twitter is just one of the most trendy social networking sites right now so people are falling over themselves to act like the squatting of (or competition for) unique IDs in a limited namespace is somehow a new concept. Once you understand the simple concept, the specific application (be it domain names, Twitter usernames, etc) is mere trivia and doesn't really explain anything new but it passes for news. Refer to Henry David Thoreau's take on "the news" to get a better idea of where I'm coming from.

Because Twitter is very trendy right now, in a few months people will probably stop talking about it as though old and well-known concepts are somehow different when applied to the site. Hell, if it's like a lot of trends, then it's possible that in a few months or so many people will not seem to know what you're talking about if you mention it, or they will speak of it like a vague memory.

I should say that I'm all for using Twitter or any other site if you want to and especially if you enjoy it. What I am speaking against is the tendency to make a big deal out of nothing, to attach novelty and significance to events that are actually predictable and trivial.

Squat before someone else does

[uncledrax]

I love how TFA suggests you go out and shot-gun register anything associated with your brand.

in short.. he's saying you should fight squatting by squatting it first.

Gotta love that.