0
107

[–] Thermite 0 points 107 points (+107|-0) ago 

I wonder how often this happens and no one complains in the "right way" to get their account restored.

0
39

[–] weezkitty 0 points 39 points (+39|-0) ago 

I hope people complain loudly everytime something like this happens.

0
16

[–] LordHumongus 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

If everyone starts yelling, everyone will stop paying attention. I don't see a fix for this without a world-wide law that forces protecting user's rights in every EULA / TOS. There's no way that'll happen either.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
16

[–] Frogolocalypse 1 points 16 points (+17|-1) ago 

Bastard stole your thoughts! You really need to complain to someone about that.

0
0

[–] RedSocks157 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The right way = having enormous piles of money

0
0

[–] BenefitsofWeed 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Its actually pretty scary to think that they never replied back to his emails. With no user interaction.. they just pretty much do whatever they want? I'm glad he got his account back, but to think of the many times this has probably happened..

1
36

[–] CatNamedJava 1 points 36 points (+37|-1) ago 

Im surprise they restore the account. If i was them i wouldn't want to appear to admit i was wrong.

0
26

[–] NateFlicks 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago 

The name would be tainted if the story got out. I'm pretty sure the guy doesn't want to be known for being an asshole.

1
16

[–] martinidude 1 points 16 points (+17|-1) ago 

Admitting you're wrong, when you're wrong, is the best kind of PR.

0
4

[–] djjin14568 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I would normally agree with you. Especially, with with many case studies/examples that have worked in the past, but the recent Ekken Pao admitting "they" (aka the other site) were wrong added so much petrol to the fire that it made things ultimately worse for said company. I'm pretty sure Twitter is hoping this story boils over, and people stop caring versus bringing this (and possibly other similar instances) into the forefront.

0
0

[–] immibis 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

That's why they didn't say anything about it. Now, they don't have to admit they're wrong, and he has no evidence if he tries to complain further!

9
28

[–] JackWhite 9 points 28 points (+37|-9) ago 

Found it interesting that this guy feels that his "rights" were violated. Instagram owns his account and he has no "right" to anything. Seems to me they can take his account at any time for any reason. They own it. Is it a dick move on their part? Sure, maybe. But are his "rights" being violated? Certainly not.

0
20

[–] weezkitty 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

Not rights. But it should be a reasonable expectation that your account would not be transferred to another person without permission. That's a trust issue

0
3

[–] JackWhite 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

If you trust Facebook or Instagram then you most certainly have "trust issues."

0
2

[–] trotineta23 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

People have to many rights nowadays. Especially when it comes to free stuff. We always forget the saying: When something is for free, it's you who's for sale.

4
2

[–] kronal 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Exactly my thoughts, I was even going to reply with the same "Is is a dick move? Sure" rhetoric.

I may need to disconnect from the hive-mind for a while.

To add something, it is bad PR for both the athlete and Instagram but aside from that, it is even likely that in the ToS says they can terminate any account for any reason, which is nothing out of this world.

1
1

[–] JackWhite 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Just curious, what did you mean by the hive-mind part? Kinda lost me there. I'm pretty sure the hive mind is saying that IG is evil and to line up in support of this guy. You see it differently?

1
0

[–] thijser 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I think a lot depends on how it all happend. It could be a form of impersonation/fraud if you act like someone else even if you do own the medium. We can think of this as a clasic medium: imagine if I shoot a film and it's very poor. Now if rather then say I directed it, was the only camera man and the only actor I state that it has George Lucas and George Cluney as director and actor then that is wrong, even if I only play the film in my own theatre. In much the same way on social media they cannot just transfer acounts as they seem fit. If they do they must make it very clear that you are not the same person. To do otherwise risks very complex legal problems.

That said I suspect that what happend is that PR guy #1 set up a twitter acount then told PR guy #2 to put content on it. PR guy #2 lost the information and contacted twitter for acount recovery. At this point he recovered the wrong acount (possibly after proving he was working for a famous person) and then twitter did not want to surrender the acount of a famous person to a random passerby(in their books) until it became obvious they had screwed up.

0
0

[–] JackWhite 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's a whole lot of speculation goin on. You could be right but I think it's simpler than that. They catered To a rich, famous person and then back tracked after public opinion turned sour because of it.

0
9

[–] ProjectEchelon 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

This guy recently had his YouTube channel taken and given to a company - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMTEzQbhXPQ ... this isn't entirely uncommon

0
1

[–] cky_stew 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Looks like he got it back at a compromise. If you go to youtube.com/lush, it redirects to the actual business /lushcosmetics.

1
1

[–] Anther 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

I would be super mad if this happened to me. Sadly there is very little that we can do as normal everyday folks. If you paid for the service then you would have some rights. You don't; so you don't.

0
4

[–] Sacrix 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

This is not correct at all. The rights you get from a service do NOT depend on whether or not you paid for it. They depend on the contract and ToS.

0
0

[–] ForgotMyName 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This sort of thing is fundamentally stupid and it boggles my mind that companies do it. Multiple companies can have the same trademarked name. Yes, that includes "lush". (I'm hoping that link works, it's to a USPTO.gov search.) So, when 10 companies are all called Lush and they all have trademarks, who are they supposed to give the name to? The cosmetics company? The hotel? The bakery? The clothing company? This is a horrible precedent to set, why would you want to put yourself in the middle of this? The person with the credentials for the account, has the account. If someone else wants the account, they can negotiate with that person outside of your service.

2
5

[–] Delacroix 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

hope you get your account back, it should not be that hard to find a variation, you should try contact him on twitter or something

0
27

[–] EChondo 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago 

He did, bottom of the article.

"UPDATE: 5 hours after writing this article, my account has been restored, but still no news from Instagram about what happened or an apology."

0
8

[–] curbstickle 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

At the bottom there is an update prior to the article posted here, they got their account back hours after the article was posted, but still no explanation or contact from instagram about it.

0
4

[–] vulpin 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

So if you get screwed over by a big company, I guess the answer is to make a big deal out of it and give them bad PR?

1
4

[–] ryandanger 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Are companies allowed to do this? What's the legality of it?

edit: I never thought it was illegal, I was just curious as to what the legal side was

0
28

[–] HST 0 points 28 points (+28|-0) ago 

I'm sure in their user agreement that it says "Instagram is allowed to close your account for any reason we see fit at any time". I don't think it's illegal either way though.

0
37

[–] binky 0 points 37 points (+37|-0) ago 

Not illegal, just scummy

[–] [deleted] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

5
2

[–] JackWhite 5 points 2 points (+7|-5) ago 

Exactly, people think that they own these accounts. Really? How much did you pay for it? Oh, whats that? Nothing. Well then you don't own squat, and worse yet they own not only your username but also every picture that you upload to their servers. They provide a free picture sharing service that you get to enjoy for free. Feeling entitled doesn't mean that you own anything.

1
1

[–] BeardedLady 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

They most certainly are. You don't pay Instagram anything, so they have absolutely zero obligation to you. They can transfer your account to Kim Jong Un and there isn't anything you can do about it.

1
1

[–] legobatman 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

It's their product, they can pretty much do anything they want with it. Unless you were paying for it, you're pretty much screwed.

0
5

[–] ryandanger 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

What if you're paying for it but they still have something like HST said above, that they can close your account at any time. You're shit outta luck then, aren't you?

0
3

[–] 123_456 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Even if you pay for something you can still get screwed. I signed up with this stock trading company called Questrade, and they were the biggest pieces of shit ever. They totally ripped me off. When I signed up they said no hidden fees or charges, and then later on they changed their mind, and started slamming my account with all the fees/charges. Then I tried to draw my money out, and they wouldn't let me. Fucking cunts. Questrade is a piece of shit. Do not sign up. They have people write fake reviews.

0
0

[–] trotineta23 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

"They took away my free account, now they must pay!"

0
3

[–] Zbruh 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

What a shitty thing for Instagram to do.

load more comments ▼ (28 remaining)