3 ms·

Did you actually own it though, per their TOS? What title was granted, if so? Also, and no offense intended truly, I think your having a grand total of 2 follow

Did you actually own it though, per their TOS? What title was granted, if so? Also, and no offense intended truly, I think your having a grand total of 2 followers after 19 years was apart of their risk calculus in this seizure.

ValentineC 6mo ago
> Also, and no offense intended truly, I think your having a grand total of 2 followers after 19 years was apart of their risk calculus in this seizure. My account was hijacked via domain/DNS takeover around the time it was acquired by fElon (due to both Crazy Domains and Twitter support's incompetence — both parties removed 2FA from my accounts, even despite me telling Crazy Domains specifically never to do so). I managed to recover both accounts after kicking up a fuss, but the hijacker was midway through an 3rd party account wiping script, and I'd lost all my followers because of that. I had 33,300+ tweets in 2015, and a lot of that was private interaction with friends.
- ilikehurdles 6mo ago
  couldn't your name have been changed by your hijacker and sold?
tart-lemonade 6mo ago
Twitter's official position is that accounts/usernames are not assets of their users (this isn't an Elon-era argument, from what I understand). I found this out when they argued in Alex Jones' bankruptcy hearings that his account should not be repossessed/auctioned off, an argument Alex supported since that's where he's been moving his audience over to to keep the cash rolling in no matter what happens. https://fortune.com/2024/11/27/x-twitter-elon-musk-account-ownership-alex-jones-bankruptcy/ https://fortune.com/2024/11/27/x-twitter-elon-musk-account-o...
Forgeties79 6mo ago
It can’t be that hard for you to think of something digital that you (don’t) own and how you would feel if a comparable situation happened to you. A TOS isn’t some magical shield from legitimate complaints and scrutiny any more than “it’s the law” makes something morally right.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- handfuloflight 6mo ago
  One should know what contracts one is entering into.
  - ornornor 6mo ago
    But of course, one reads all of the ToS of every service one uses. It’s just something one does.
    - handfuloflight 6mo ago
      No, but one should definitely do it for those services where one is investing their time and resources into in a significant manner such that any disruption would be painful.
  - Forgeties79 6mo ago
    These responses strike me as unserious and flippant. You’d never accept these responses if it happened to you with something you care about. Also, comparing a TOS to a formal contract by two parties is a bit disingenuous. A classic “yes it’s technically true” situation. TOS’s are not treated the same way as a signed and dated formal contract. Not even by companies putting them up. They are lower stakes and often pages and pages of legalese that you also skip over at times.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - handfuloflight 6mo ago
      Unpacking the legal framework someone is operating in isn't the same as endorsing it morally, those are two separate questions worth keeping distinct.

ValentineC 6mo ago

> Also, and no offense intended truly, I think your having a grand total of 2 followers after 19 years was apart of their risk calculus in this seizure. My account was hijacked via domain/DNS takeover around the time it was acquired by fElon (due to both Crazy Domains and Twitter support's incompetence — both parties removed 2FA from my accounts, even despite me telling Crazy Domains specifically never to do so). I managed to recover both accounts after kicking up a fuss, but the hijacker was midway through an 3rd party account wiping script, and I'd lost all my followers because of that. I had 33,300+ tweets in 2015, and a lot of that was private interaction with friends.

ilikehurdles 6mo ago
couldn't your name have been changed by your hijacker and sold?

tart-lemonade 6mo ago

Twitter's official position is that accounts/usernames are not assets of their users (this isn't an Elon-era argument, from what I understand). I found this out when they argued in Alex Jones' bankruptcy hearings that his account should not be repossessed/auctioned off, an argument Alex supported since that's where he's been moving his audience over to to keep the cash rolling in no matter what happens. https://fortune.com/2024/11/27/x-twitter-elon-musk-account-ownership-alex-jones-bankruptcy/ https://fortune.com/2024/11/27/x-twitter-elon-musk-account-o...

Forgeties79 6mo ago

It can’t be that hard for you to think of something digital that you (don’t) own and how you would feel if a comparable situation happened to you. A TOS isn’t some magical shield from legitimate complaints and scrutiny any more than “it’s the law” makes something morally right.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
handfuloflight 6mo ago
One should know what contracts one is entering into.
- ornornor 6mo ago
  But of course, one reads all of the ToS of every service one uses. It’s just something one does.
  - handfuloflight 6mo ago
    No, but one should definitely do it for those services where one is investing their time and resources into in a significant manner such that any disruption would be painful.
- Forgeties79 6mo ago
  These responses strike me as unserious and flippant. You’d never accept these responses if it happened to you with something you care about. Also, comparing a TOS to a formal contract by two parties is a bit disingenuous. A classic “yes it’s technically true” situation. TOS’s are not treated the same way as a signed and dated formal contract. Not even by companies putting them up. They are lower stakes and often pages and pages of legalese that you also skip over at times.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - handfuloflight 6mo ago
    Unpacking the legal framework someone is operating in isn't the same as endorsing it morally, those are two separate questions worth keeping distinct.