4 ms·

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

by 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)
      - Canada 2y ago
        I understand these arguments, which is why I'd just kill the accounts if I were Twitter or Facebook or even HN. It's not in Twitter's interest to allow these handles to be property. It's not in the interest of Twitter to allow some high profile account to be taken over in this manner. I'm not a fan on Alex Jones, but it wouldn't be good for Twitter to let these people take over his account. The users who do interact with the account expect to be interacting with Alex Jones, so handing the account over only degrades Twitter's service for those users. It's perfectly reasonable for Twitter to care more about its own integrity and value, like how users would prefer things to be moderated, than whether people who Alex Jones owes money to can extract any value from his social media handles. The difference between Elon Musk buying Twitter is that the previous owners sold it willingly and everyone accepts that Twitter is Musk's now, and he can do as he likes, even renaming the site. Nobody believes that the Onion or whoever is really Infowars just because some bankruptcy judge says so. When Musk acquired Twitter he continued operating the service. The new owners of Infowars have no intention of continuing it. If anyone acquired a browser plugin or mobile app in a bankruptcy, got the app store credentials, then pushed updates changing the fundamental nature of the app to something its existing users don't want or expect, then they shouldn't be surprised if the app store just removes them. Same goes for social media handles.
        dredmorbius 2y ago
        Courts. Limit. Discretionary. Action. If a court were to say "transfer the accounts", then a failure to do so would put the entity (a private individual, company, or other organisation or institution) in violation of the court's express order.

by 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)
    - Canada 2y ago
      I understand these arguments, which is why I'd just kill the accounts if I were Twitter or Facebook or even HN. It's not in Twitter's interest to allow these handles to be property. It's not in the interest of Twitter to allow some high profile account to be taken over in this manner. I'm not a fan on Alex Jones, but it wouldn't be good for Twitter to let these people take over his account. The users who do interact with the account expect to be interacting with Alex Jones, so handing the account over only degrades Twitter's service for those users. It's perfectly reasonable for Twitter to care more about its own integrity and value, like how users would prefer things to be moderated, than whether people who Alex Jones owes money to can extract any value from his social media handles. The difference between Elon Musk buying Twitter is that the previous owners sold it willingly and everyone accepts that Twitter is Musk's now, and he can do as he likes, even renaming the site. Nobody believes that the Onion or whoever is really Infowars just because some bankruptcy judge says so. When Musk acquired Twitter he continued operating the service. The new owners of Infowars have no intention of continuing it. If anyone acquired a browser plugin or mobile app in a bankruptcy, got the app store credentials, then pushed updates changing the fundamental nature of the app to something its existing users don't want or expect, then they shouldn't be surprised if the app store just removes them. Same goes for social media handles.
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
        Courts. Limit. Discretionary. Action. If a court were to say "transfer the accounts", then a failure to do so would put the entity (a private individual, company, or other organisation or institution) in violation of the court's express order.