Musk's X is trying to stop The Onion from buying Alex Jones' social media accounts.

Summary

Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) has filed a court motion claiming ownership of all X accounts, arguing they cannot be transferred, in an effort to block The Onion’s purchase of InfoWars, Alex Jones’s conspiracy outlet.

The sale was part of a $1.4 billion judgment against Jones for defaming Sandy Hook families.

X’s filing asserts that users only hold a non-transferable license to their accounts, despite Musk’s prior actions threatening to reassign handles.

Critics view Musk’s move as aiding far-right figures like Jones and aligning with his MAGA agenda.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    50·
    2 hours ago

    I just need someone to explain to me how this doesn’t mean he’s liable for anything posted on every account. If he has ownership of the account then the liability rest with him. So the meteoric rise of child pornography on Twitter would seem to indicate to me at least that Elon Musk is liable for child pornography. Not to mention hate speech and credible threats.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      122·
      2 hours ago

      I believe the argument being used is roughly analogous to lending something to someone.

      If you borrow a lawnmower, it doesn’t get auctioned off when you go bankrupt. You get to use it however you like and if you commit a crime with it you’re responsible. It’s still ultimately owned by the person who leant it to you.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      1·
      44 minutes ago

      The same provisions that protect internet providers when subscribers use their service to break the law, probably. As long as they pretend to be a communications provider and self-regulate, they’re shielded from liability.

      In this case, the account/handle could be argued to be equivalent to an IP address, which is something owned by the provider and not the user. If Felon Musk tried to claim copyright of user-submitted content as well as their accounts, that would be what opens up a large can of liability worms (by turning them into a publisher).

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        1·
        44 minutes ago

        The problem with citing those Provisions is those companies have never claimed direct ownership of said accounts. This is an entirely new legal argument.

        • pivot_root@lemmy.world
          1·
          4 minutes ago

          It’s pushing existing boundaries, but I wouldn’t call it an entirely new argument. Twitter’s lawyers could (and probably would) argue that a Twitter account is analogous to something that is already well-established as being both property of the service provider and insulted enough that it doesn’t make the service provider liable for content published through it.

          My previous example of “Twitter account = IP address” is probably the easiest to explain through analogy.

          An IP address is an addressable identifier. /
          An account is an addressable identifier.

          Verizon owns their IP addresses. /
          Twitter owns their accounts.

          Subscribers can communicate under one of Verizon’s IP addresses. /
          Users can communicate under one of Twitter’s accounts.

          Verizon can not be held liable in civil court for actions performed with one of their IP addresses. /
          … (this is the argument Twitter could make)

          A sane court would probably find that the second point isn’t comparable because an account uniquely identifies a specific entity whereas an IP address is shared, but we don’t exactly live in times where sanity is a given. Alternatively, they could argue that “Twitter handle = IP address” and “Twitter account = subscriber account”.

          In any case, we won’t find out until when/if it makes it to court. Though, if it does, that might actually be one and only time I don’t side against the MPAA or RIAA.

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    5·
    2 hours ago

    Man.

    He’s like if Dr. Evil and every bond villain were combined into one, then poorly written in a Sci-fi channel special as the wealthiest man in the world.

    He doesn’t actually do anything but be rich and say stupid shit, and for some reason people keep going along with it

  • crawancon@lemm.ee
    6·
    2 hours ago

    Pepperidge Farm remembers when he took over the @x account from a long time user and no 'no transferable license was ever muttered when it benefited him not to do so.

    you take away all his money and you’re just left with pure, raw asshole.

  • Dkarma@lemmy.world
    51·
    2 hours ago

    So if you threaten someone on Twitter it’s really Elon threatening them? Interesting.

  • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
    112·
    3 hours ago

    Technically he’s right. It’s like the access card to a shitty gym, the card is their property, provided to you as long as you fulfill your part of the agreement.

    Except that this time, the gym is owned by a megalomaniac madman. I’d let him keep the card and let him waddle in the filth of his own making all by himself.

    • Albbi@lemmy.ca
      2·
      2 hours ago

      No, the X terms of service specifically state that you retiain ownership and rights to anything you post. X just takes free license to your posts so that it can show it to the world.

      There are Intellectual Property Licenses in these Terms: You retain ownership and rights to any of your Content you post or share, and you provide us with a broad, royalty-free license to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. Conversely, we provide you a license to use the software we provide as part of the Services, such as the X mobile application, solely for the purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services.

      • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
        81·
        2 hours ago

        You retain rights to your content, but not to the account itself.

        Which isn’t a bad thing. Platforms should be able to terminate accounts that break the law, for example.