3 ms·
Elon Musk wants to block the transfer of InfoWars' X accounts to The Onion [pdf]
- gigatexal 2y agoHow can he? It was a sale. Is he going to authorize everything?
- coding123 2y agoTwitter handles are owned by Twitter, not other entities. Also the sale was blocked is the last I heard due to improper sale.
- slau 2y agoIt’s not blocked, and there is no improper sale. Well, there is if you listen to Jones. Jones is alleging that there was fraud and collusion between the Sandy Hook parents/victims and the executor of the sale. The judge will make a decision in a couple of weeks. There are two things being discussed with the judge—Jones’ allegations and a request from the appointee to approve the sale, and the judge has decided to handle both things in a single session. Jones is trying to delay thing, and spouting a lot of nonsense in the process as usual. https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-auction-onion-newtown-8352f1e442c5d37f64a798416ff5afa8 https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-auction-onion...
- devops99 2y ago“I want a fair and transparent process and let’s just see where the process goes,” Lopez said. Yikes.
- labcomputer 2y agoIANAL, but AIUI, the situation is somewhat analogous to “debtor in possession”. For example, if a “factory and everything in it” is sold in a bankruptcy auction, the buyer doesn’t get the vending machines owned by the 3rd party caterer. The vending machines are in possession of the debtor, but not owned by him. So the bankruptcy court can’t transfer them. X is arguing that users do not own their handles, so X cannot be compelled to transfer a handle from one user to another as part of a bankruptcy auction.
- explain 2y agoAnd per ToS, accounts cannot be sold. A company can be sold including its assets (its X account), but not a personal account - which Jones' account is. @InfoWars and @AlexJones are different issues entirely.
- gameman144 2y ago> A company can be sold including its assets (its X account) The argument would be that a company's X account is not one of its assets -- it is one of X's.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hmcq6 2y agoWhile I agree I'm pretty sure InfoWars is a trademark the Onion now owns? I don't think that means X is required to transfer the handle but I wonder if that would open them up to further lawsuits
- gigatexal 2y agoI get that. But also disagree with Elon (shocker, I know!). But also Alex Jones is a horrible human and his platform being sold to pay the debts the courts awarded the families he harmed is poetic justice Kendrick Lamar couldn’t have written better than. Here’s hoping the Onion gets the assets and can satirize Jones for ever and ever as the putz that he is.
- explain 2y agoContext for those who aren't up to date. InfoWars does tens of millions in revenue per year, but is nothing without Alex Jones. A Jones-friendly bid was made for $3.5M, while Onion bidded $1.75M. Onion won the 'auction' (where you get a single bid, and no knowledge of other bids), because with their bid also came commitments from some of the Sandy Hook families to drop their claims for compensation ($1.5B in total). This $1.5B was never collectable in the first place.
- hmcq6 2y agoI'm gonna need a community note on this "context" By what logic was this $1.5 B not collectible in the first place? Edit: Also > The Onion estimates its total bid value is $7 million.
- explain 2y agoIt would only be possible to collect the money if he has it, which he doesn't. It may be $7 million in total value, but I believe the actual money was $1.75M. The other $5M would be uncollectible debt being forgiven.
- hmcq6 2y agoDid you mean to say "liquid"? Obviously he doesn't have $1.5 Billion liquid, no one does. But to try dismiss most of the debt as "uncollectible" while discussing how one of the many assets Jones owns is worth millions of dollars... That *literally is process of collections*. Hence the sarcastic request for a community note.
- Arnt 2y agoCollectable means that you can collect. If you have a judgment of $1M with a use-by date of 30 years, then that's collectable if and only if the person's current assets plus future earnings add up to $1M.
- hmcq6 2y ago
- legitster 2y agoTL;DR: According to Twitter... erm, X, accounts are their property and they don't have to allow the transfer of accounts. That's it, that's the whole argument. There is not stated reason why X should care. And it's not like any time a company has been bought or sold before that they have jumped in and say "nuh-uh".
- grahamj 2y agoIf X owns the accounts then it shouldn't get Section 230 protection for them.