5 ms·

Context needed about why Musk blocked The Onion accounts?

unsnap_biceps 2y ago
Musk filed saying that he owns the X accounts and they aren't allowed to be sold according to the TOS. The X accounts were removed from the pending sale.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  Very speech much free
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    All social media accounts are owned by the company and they can and do shutdown people every second of everyday. This is the least surprising. Instagram just shutdown the account of the suspected ceo killer. That person didn't break any social media rules (didn't post copyright or tell someone off or spam marketplace) but instagram has the right. I don't see anyone shocked.
    - alt187 2y ago
      No one is "shocked", the irony is that Musk postures as a rabid free speech advocate. It's not surprising, but it's hypocritical.
      - Canada 2y ago
        You can support people's right to say what they want, while also saying it's against the house rules to impersonate other people. Doesn't seem that unreasonable.
        anigbrowl 2y ago
        But it's not impersonation. Jones was ordered by a court to give up all the Infowars assets, including the brand and the associated social media handles. The sale is on hold for legal reasons but that's beside the point.
        dredmorbius 2y ago
        Moreover: the same argument used to defend Musk could be applied to the transfer of Twitter to him. Both that and the InfoWars exchange were property transfers. The first a market transaction, the second by court order.
        Canada 2y ago
        The namespace on Twitter is not property owned by the user. It's just namespace which is owned by Twitter. The use of it is at the sole discretion of Twitter. If Twitter doesn't think that it's appropriate that this group be able to represent themselves as "Alex Jones" or "Infowars" in their namespace then they don't have to. It doesn't matter if it's a voluntary sale or a court ordered transfer. My default action would be to just take all the handles away. I wouldn't tolerate allowing courts to redefine my namespace into other people's property. Especially if I just paid $44 billion to purchase it! I'd definitely not allow the new owners of Infowars to have Alex Jones personal Twitter handle(s) because they are not Alex Jones and doing so would be an admission that my namespace is not my private property, but that of someone else.
        dredmorbius 2y ago
        If a court were to order transfer of assets, your argument would find a limit. That's what courts do. Rarely enough that there's not a whole lot of coverage but I'm finding a few cases: We have previously written an OnPoint about the law concerning ownership of social media accounts in light of the explosive growth in the use of such media for commercial advertising, product development and customer engagement. We presented on this and related topics at the Federal Bar Association and MyLawCLE webinar on September 6, 2023. We then wrote an OnPoint about the Second Circuit’s decision in JLM Couture, Inc. v. Hayley Paige Gutman, in which the Second Circuit instructed that ownership and control of social media accounts created during employment or in connection with one’s employment should be determined on a case-by-case basis without a pre-determined multifactor test. "From Creation to Control: Navigating Social Media Ownership in the Second Circuit" <https://www.dechert.com/knowledge/onpoint/2024/9/social-media-ownership--key-court-rulings-and-settlement.html https://www.dechert.com/knowledge/onpoint/2024/9/social-medi...> (24 Sep 2024) And: [T]he court issued a memorandum opinion regarding the social media accounts on April 3, 2015. The court ruled that the reorganized debtor was entitled to direct control of the social media accounts — a Facebook page and a Twitter account — because the accounts were business accounts, not Alcede’s personal accounts. The court’s analysis was thorough and will be frequently cited in future social media cases. "Social Media Accounts — Bankruptcy Court Ruling Sets Precedent" <https://www.abfjournal.com/articles/social-media-accounts-bankruptcy-court-ruling-sets-precedent/ https://www.abfjournal.com/articles/social-media-accounts-ba...> (9 Jul 2015) This is a decidedly different case than, say, squatting or hijacking an identifier, or having a service provider arbitrarily reassign it. Both instances of which definitely do occur. The first often enough that there are multiple how-to guides to recovery and avoidance: "How to deal with (and prevent) a hacked Twitter account" <https://sproutsocial.com/insights/hacked-twitter-account/ https://sproutsocial.com/insights/hacked-twitter-account/> "5 Signs Your X (Twitter) Account Is Hacked – And What To Do" <https://www.forbes.com/sites/technology/article/x-twitter-hacked/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/technology/article/x-twitter-ha...> As well as coverage of specific events: "The original owner of @N gets his $50k Twitter handle back" <https://www.dailydot.com/debug/twitter-handle-n-hijacking-fixed/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/twitter-handle-n-hijacking-fi...> (2021) Twitter does and has commandeered or arbitrarily seized accounts: "Twitter commandeers @X username from man who had it since 2007 " <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/twitter-took-x-handle-from-longtime-user-and-only-offered-him-some-merch/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/twitter-took-x-h...> (26 July 2023)
- jfoster 2y ago
  I haven't seen the filing, but I presume you mean that X filed saying that they own the accounts, right? I don't get why people conflate Elon Musk with the companies that he runs. I imagine he has controlling stakes in all of them, but for the most part he's probably not even a majority shareholder in most of the companies he's running.
  - Gigachad 2y ago
    Because X is purely a platform to do whatever Elon wants. It’s so blatantly obvious that this decision came from Musk even if it was delivered indirectly.
    - jfoster 2y ago
      Isn't that how all companies operate? For instance, GM reconsidering Cruise is clearly from Mary Barra, but the decision is overall a GM decision. Saying "Mary Barra is shutting down Cruise" would just seem childish.
      - ttyprintk 2y ago
        Privately held companies, yes. Not all.
  - unsnap_biceps 2y ago
    You bring up a fair point. In my mind, Musk has taken so much control over X that it's more of a direct relationship than Tesla or SpaceX would be. For this filing, IIRC It was reported that Musk instructed X to step in on Jone's request for help. That feels different to me than GM shutting down a project. It feels politically motivated by Musk's personal beliefs then a decision being made on the company's behalf for the benefit of the company. But I do accept the criticism that it was X that filed, not Musk and I mis-spoke in my original comment
    - trollbridge 2y ago
      X does have a vested interested in ensuring its usernames and accounts do not legally become alienable property that can be auctioned in a bankruptcy auction. They don’t technically allow accounts or usernames to be sold at all (or follows, engagement and so forth), although I’m sure this happens quite often under the radar. X can and has taken any username they want away from a user for any or no reason. Filing a brief in a bankruptcy auction that “this property is ours, not the debtor’s, and may not be auctioned or also” is an obvious way for them to publicly assert their rights and ownership.
- Sparyjerry 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ternnoburn 2y ago
    It's also nonsense, if that was true then every merger and acquisition would need fresh Twitter accounts. He's thumbing the scale here and back justifying it.
  - lkramer 2y ago
    Wait what? Do you have any source for subreddits being sold to Democrats?
    - Sparyjerry 2y ago
      It used to be on reddit but who knows now.
    - Tesl 2y ago
      Of course he doesn't :)
- NekkoDroid 2y ago
  > Musk filed saying that he owns the X accounts This would then also imply that any post containing illegal stuff is also his problem, wouldn't it?
  - delichon 2y ago
    Section 230 of Title 47 says no.
    - micromacrofoot 2y ago
      he's arguably waving that by claiming he, and not the poster, owns the content
      - delichon 2y ago
        The claim that he owns the account is not the same as claiming to own its contents. E.g. a landlord that owns an apartment typically does not have a claim on their tenant's property in the apartment, except under special circumstances. They may have some liability for their tenant's property in some cases, e.g. if they knowingly allow a bomb factory. But Section 230 is an explicit waiver for that liability in terms of speech. Both parties are very interested in limiting the scope of that waiver in different ways, but that's the current law, and it tends to be broadly interpreted.
      - fooker 2y ago
        You know how we percieve absurd hacking scenes in movies? That's how lawyers look at internet comments like this.
        micromacrofoot 2y ago
        and I'm sure novelists are upset about our brevity
        CyberDildonics 2y ago
- samatman 2y ago
  All of which is straightforwardly true, and in fact, uncontroversial.

Musk filed saying that he owns the X accounts and they aren't allowed to be sold according to the TOS. The X accounts were removed from the pending sale.

anigbrowl 2y ago
Very speech much free
- ipaddr 2y ago
  All social media accounts are owned by the company and they can and do shutdown people every second of everyday. This is the least surprising. Instagram just shutdown the account of the suspected ceo killer. That person didn't break any social media rules (didn't post copyright or tell someone off or spam marketplace) but instagram has the right. I don't see anyone shocked.
  - alt187 2y ago
    No one is "shocked", the irony is that Musk postures as a rabid free speech advocate. It's not surprising, but it's hypocritical.
    - Canada 2y ago
      You can support people's right to say what they want, while also saying it's against the house rules to impersonate other people. Doesn't seem that unreasonable.
      - anigbrowl 2y ago
        But it's not impersonation. Jones was ordered by a court to give up all the Infowars assets, including the brand and the associated social media handles. The sale is on hold for legal reasons but that's beside the point.
        dredmorbius 2y ago
        Moreover: the same argument used to defend Musk could be applied to the transfer of Twitter to him. Both that and the InfoWars exchange were property transfers. The first a market transaction, the second by court order.
        Canada 2y ago
        The namespace on Twitter is not property owned by the user. It's just namespace which is owned by Twitter. The use of it is at the sole discretion of Twitter. If Twitter doesn't think that it's appropriate that this group be able to represent themselves as "Alex Jones" or "Infowars" in their namespace then they don't have to. It doesn't matter if it's a voluntary sale or a court ordered transfer. My default action would be to just take all the handles away. I wouldn't tolerate allowing courts to redefine my namespace into other people's property. Especially if I just paid $44 billion to purchase it! I'd definitely not allow the new owners of Infowars to have Alex Jones personal Twitter handle(s) because they are not Alex Jones and doing so would be an admission that my namespace is not my private property, but that of someone else.
        dredmorbius 2y ago
        If a court were to order transfer of assets, your argument would find a limit. That's what courts do. Rarely enough that there's not a whole lot of coverage but I'm finding a few cases: We have previously written an OnPoint about the law concerning ownership of social media accounts in light of the explosive growth in the use of such media for commercial advertising, product development and customer engagement. We presented on this and related topics at the Federal Bar Association and MyLawCLE webinar on September 6, 2023. We then wrote an OnPoint about the Second Circuit’s decision in JLM Couture, Inc. v. Hayley Paige Gutman, in which the Second Circuit instructed that ownership and control of social media accounts created during employment or in connection with one’s employment should be determined on a case-by-case basis without a pre-determined multifactor test. "From Creation to Control: Navigating Social Media Ownership in the Second Circuit" <https://www.dechert.com/knowledge/onpoint/2024/9/social-media-ownership--key-court-rulings-and-settlement.html https://www.dechert.com/knowledge/onpoint/2024/9/social-medi...> (24 Sep 2024) And: [T]he court issued a memorandum opinion regarding the social media accounts on April 3, 2015. The court ruled that the reorganized debtor was entitled to direct control of the social media accounts — a Facebook page and a Twitter account — because the accounts were business accounts, not Alcede’s personal accounts. The court’s analysis was thorough and will be frequently cited in future social media cases. "Social Media Accounts — Bankruptcy Court Ruling Sets Precedent" <https://www.abfjournal.com/articles/social-media-accounts-bankruptcy-court-ruling-sets-precedent/ https://www.abfjournal.com/articles/social-media-accounts-ba...> (9 Jul 2015) This is a decidedly different case than, say, squatting or hijacking an identifier, or having a service provider arbitrarily reassign it. Both instances of which definitely do occur. The first often enough that there are multiple how-to guides to recovery and avoidance: "How to deal with (and prevent) a hacked Twitter account" <https://sproutsocial.com/insights/hacked-twitter-account/ https://sproutsocial.com/insights/hacked-twitter-account/> "5 Signs Your X (Twitter) Account Is Hacked – And What To Do" <https://www.forbes.com/sites/technology/article/x-twitter-hacked/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/technology/article/x-twitter-ha...> As well as coverage of specific events: "The original owner of @N gets his $50k Twitter handle back" <https://www.dailydot.com/debug/twitter-handle-n-hijacking-fixed/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/twitter-handle-n-hijacking-fi...> (2021) Twitter does and has commandeered or arbitrarily seized accounts: "Twitter commandeers @X username from man who had it since 2007 " <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/twitter-took-x-handle-from-longtime-user-and-only-offered-him-some-merch/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/twitter-took-x-h...> (26 July 2023)
jfoster 2y ago
I haven't seen the filing, but I presume you mean that X filed saying that they own the accounts, right? I don't get why people conflate Elon Musk with the companies that he runs. I imagine he has controlling stakes in all of them, but for the most part he's probably not even a majority shareholder in most of the companies he's running.
- Gigachad 2y ago
  Because X is purely a platform to do whatever Elon wants. It’s so blatantly obvious that this decision came from Musk even if it was delivered indirectly.
  - jfoster 2y ago
    Isn't that how all companies operate? For instance, GM reconsidering Cruise is clearly from Mary Barra, but the decision is overall a GM decision. Saying "Mary Barra is shutting down Cruise" would just seem childish.
    - ttyprintk 2y ago
      Privately held companies, yes. Not all.
- unsnap_biceps 2y ago
  You bring up a fair point. In my mind, Musk has taken so much control over X that it's more of a direct relationship than Tesla or SpaceX would be. For this filing, IIRC It was reported that Musk instructed X to step in on Jone's request for help. That feels different to me than GM shutting down a project. It feels politically motivated by Musk's personal beliefs then a decision being made on the company's behalf for the benefit of the company. But I do accept the criticism that it was X that filed, not Musk and I mis-spoke in my original comment
  - trollbridge 2y ago
    X does have a vested interested in ensuring its usernames and accounts do not legally become alienable property that can be auctioned in a bankruptcy auction. They don’t technically allow accounts or usernames to be sold at all (or follows, engagement and so forth), although I’m sure this happens quite often under the radar. X can and has taken any username they want away from a user for any or no reason. Filing a brief in a bankruptcy auction that “this property is ours, not the debtor’s, and may not be auctioned or also” is an obvious way for them to publicly assert their rights and ownership.
Sparyjerry 2y ago
[flagged]
- ternnoburn 2y ago
  It's also nonsense, if that was true then every merger and acquisition would need fresh Twitter accounts. He's thumbing the scale here and back justifying it.
- lkramer 2y ago
  Wait what? Do you have any source for subreddits being sold to Democrats?
  - Sparyjerry 2y ago
    It used to be on reddit but who knows now.
  - Tesl 2y ago
    Of course he doesn't :)
NekkoDroid 2y ago
> Musk filed saying that he owns the X accounts This would then also imply that any post containing illegal stuff is also his problem, wouldn't it?
- delichon 2y ago
  Section 230 of Title 47 says no.
  - micromacrofoot 2y ago
    he's arguably waving that by claiming he, and not the poster, owns the content
    - delichon 2y ago
      The claim that he owns the account is not the same as claiming to own its contents. E.g. a landlord that owns an apartment typically does not have a claim on their tenant's property in the apartment, except under special circumstances. They may have some liability for their tenant's property in some cases, e.g. if they knowingly allow a bomb factory. But Section 230 is an explicit waiver for that liability in terms of speech. Both parties are very interested in limiting the scope of that waiver in different ways, but that's the current law, and it tends to be broadly interpreted.
    - fooker 2y ago
      You know how we percieve absurd hacking scenes in movies? That's how lawyers look at internet comments like this.
      - micromacrofoot 2y ago
        and I'm sure novelists are upset about our brevity
        CyberDildonics 2y ago
samatman 2y ago
All of which is straightforwardly true, and in fact, uncontroversial.