5 ms·

I took this as more like when you write a letter to a magazine and they say to write "Ok to print" so they can use it later. If you send them a message for use

I took this as more like when you write a letter to a magazine and they say to write "Ok to print" so they can use it later. If you send them a message for use in MayThe4th celebrations, they can then use it in promotions.

_kst_ 6y ago
Except that tweets aren't sent to Disney. They're sent to all Twitter users.
- lewisgodowski 6y ago
  > The above legal language applies ONLY to replies to this tweet using #MayThe4th and mentioning @DisneyPlus Couldn't replying to their tweet be considered sending it to Disney?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - vageli 6y ago
    > > The above legal language applies ONLY to replies to this tweet using #MayThe4th and mentioning @DisneyPlus > Couldn't replying to their tweet be considered sending it to Disney? Is replying to a column in an opinion piece sending it to the author or the newspaper?
  - sjwright 6y ago
    Tweeting is (generally speaking) a public performance, not something which is "sent" to someone. The same applies to most open platforms, including Hacker News comments like this one.
- _kst_ 6y ago
  For some reason I don't see a reply link on lewisgodowski's comment. > Couldn't replying to their tweet be considered sending it to Disney? Disney apparently does "consider" that to be sending it to Disney. Since Twitter doesn't belong to Disney, I don't see how that could have any legal relevance. Twitter has its own terms of service. (I am not a lawyer.)
  - henryfjordan 6y ago
    If you and I tweet back and forth agreeing that I'll sell you a sandwich for $5, that's a contract. No court is going to hear an argument that I was talking to Twitter and then Twitter was talking to you so it doesn't count. Anyone tweeting @Disney is clearly "sending it to Disney". Also I think there's a time delay on seeing the reply link on replies to your own comments.
    - 8ytecoder 6y ago
      Even ignoring the rest of your logic - replies are different from mentions and can be inferred only by context of the tweet and not simply the presence of @disney in the tweet.
    - justusthane 6y ago
      In your example, I would be Tweeting you explicitly saying “I’ll give you $5.” Maybe that’s a binding contract. That’s not what Disney is doing. What Disney is doing would be like if I said “Anyone who Tweets at me owes me $5.” That’s obviously not a binding contract.
      - henryfjordan 6y ago
        Disney is saying "in exchange for a chance to spread your message in our marketing materials, you agree to our follow our ToS".
        gmanley 6y ago
        You're really twisting words here. No that is not what is happening. I never agreed to any exchange. I should be able to tweet at Disney with that hashtag and not agree to their ToS. Nothing about a hashtag implies consent. It is not their service to set terms for. I already agreed to the twitter ToS. I shouldn't have to be worried about accidentally agreeing to terms just because I used the right combination of hashtag and twitter user.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
neltnerb 6y ago
Yeah, that's what it reads like for sure. Shouldn't they be negotiating with Twitter for that though?
contravariant 6y ago
Except the phrase "Ok to print" is unambiguous consent. And should it occur somewhere where it is ambiguous what is being meant then it doesn't count as consent. Sending a tweet to Disney with a generic hashtag can't be considered consent in any way, shape or form. What guarantee does DisneyPlus have that everyone sending them a tweet with hashtag #MayThe4th is intending that to count as consent?

_kst_ 6y ago

Except that tweets aren't sent to Disney. They're sent to all Twitter users.

lewisgodowski 6y ago
> The above legal language applies ONLY to replies to this tweet using #MayThe4th and mentioning @DisneyPlus Couldn't replying to their tweet be considered sending it to Disney?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- vageli 6y ago
  > > The above legal language applies ONLY to replies to this tweet using #MayThe4th and mentioning @DisneyPlus > Couldn't replying to their tweet be considered sending it to Disney? Is replying to a column in an opinion piece sending it to the author or the newspaper?
- sjwright 6y ago
  Tweeting is (generally speaking) a public performance, not something which is "sent" to someone. The same applies to most open platforms, including Hacker News comments like this one.
_kst_ 6y ago
For some reason I don't see a reply link on lewisgodowski's comment. > Couldn't replying to their tweet be considered sending it to Disney? Disney apparently does "consider" that to be sending it to Disney. Since Twitter doesn't belong to Disney, I don't see how that could have any legal relevance. Twitter has its own terms of service. (I am not a lawyer.)
- henryfjordan 6y ago
  If you and I tweet back and forth agreeing that I'll sell you a sandwich for $5, that's a contract. No court is going to hear an argument that I was talking to Twitter and then Twitter was talking to you so it doesn't count. Anyone tweeting @Disney is clearly "sending it to Disney". Also I think there's a time delay on seeing the reply link on replies to your own comments.
  - 8ytecoder 6y ago
    Even ignoring the rest of your logic - replies are different from mentions and can be inferred only by context of the tweet and not simply the presence of @disney in the tweet.
  - justusthane 6y ago
    In your example, I would be Tweeting you explicitly saying “I’ll give you $5.” Maybe that’s a binding contract. That’s not what Disney is doing. What Disney is doing would be like if I said “Anyone who Tweets at me owes me $5.” That’s obviously not a binding contract.
    - henryfjordan 6y ago
      Disney is saying "in exchange for a chance to spread your message in our marketing materials, you agree to our follow our ToS".
      - gmanley 6y ago
        You're really twisting words here. No that is not what is happening. I never agreed to any exchange. I should be able to tweet at Disney with that hashtag and not agree to their ToS. Nothing about a hashtag implies consent. It is not their service to set terms for. I already agreed to the twitter ToS. I shouldn't have to be worried about accidentally agreeing to terms just because I used the right combination of hashtag and twitter user.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

neltnerb 6y ago

Yeah, that's what it reads like for sure. Shouldn't they be negotiating with Twitter for that though?

contravariant 6y ago

Except the phrase "Ok to print" is unambiguous consent. And should it occur somewhere where it is ambiguous what is being meant then it doesn't count as consent. Sending a tweet to Disney with a generic hashtag can't be considered consent in any way, shape or form. What guarantee does DisneyPlus have that everyone sending them a tweet with hashtag #MayThe4th is intending that to count as consent?