Taking away his vanity url was, or should have been, a deliberate action.
I cannot believe that there would be enough trademark complaints that someone doesn't check the persons name before taking away a vanity url and sending such a message.
And if techcrunch had not gotten involved I cannot see them giving the same response to any person.
It's amazing what a little media attention to your support issues will do.
We should institutionalize that somehow. Like the public wall of shame of old, a vetting board decides if your issue gets pushed down the pipeline and all the news outlets subscribe to it.
Institutionalizing this kind of attention would normalize it. It would remove its extra-ordinary nature, its very newsworthiness, thus diluting the effect.
We should institutionalize that somehow. Like the public wall of shame of old, a vetting board decides if your issue gets pushed down the pipeline and all the news outlets subscribe to it.
Or, one could run it something like how Stack Overflow is run, with a community voting on what issues are most deserving of attention, and helping to solve the issues and get the word out. Then the media could just skim the issues that were voted up the most from time to time, when they're having a slow news day.
I cannot believe that there would be enough trademark complaints that someone doesn't check the persons name before taking away a vanity url and sending such a message.
And if techcrunch had not gotten involved I cannot see them giving the same response to any person.