4 ms·

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

by 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)

by ipaddr 2y ago

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)