3 ms·

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

by _kst_ 6y ago

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.

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

by _kst_ 6y ago

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

> 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.