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 ha

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.