The Onion should allow Musk to block the sale of the Twitter handle, then sue Alex Jones for falsely advertising the sale of an account he can't sell and sue Twitter for infringing on their trademark of the InfoWars brand.
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
407 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
1458 readers
230 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Alex Jones had no say in what was being sold. The Court seized his assets and sold them to pay the people he owes.
Elon Musk parody accounts no longer required to advertise themselves as parody, since they really are Elon Musk now.
It was always this way, on all platforms.
Not supporting Musk here, but there is some truth to the claim in the headline.
One major danger we currently have is everyone thinking that social media platform accounts are property. They simply aren't -- at least, not yours. If the company decides to terminate your account, they can do that. It will be supported by the TOS. You do not own it.
You also don't own data you put on it. Post a bunch of photos to FB? They own them and can do whatever they want with them.
The danger is that these things are so ubiquitous they appear like information utilities, but they are not. They are corporate services wholly owned by their respective corporations. It is something that makes federated systems stand out from the crowd (not that you own an account there either, but there at least is not a single centralized corporate owner).
More people need to be made aware of this.
He does though. Read the fine print. You are just allowed to use it. Not really surprising.
That pic, though: Peak American alpha males.
It's amazing how many "bro" dudes are riding their dicks.
You mean rich spoiled man-children who are nothing more than insecure adolescent tweens going through puberty and having sexually frustrated tantrums because girls just laugh at them, and their narcissism is so all-consuming that their only emotion is disdain and goal in all the world is more and more self-gratification and the insatiable pursuit of total control of everything, because they know deep down they will never ever be the recipients of genuine respect or admiration.
Yeah that's what I thought you said. Slight faux pas.
Fake tan. Fake hair.
alpha
Unpredictable behavior, unfit for the general public to interact with.
It’s days like this that I’m just so happy and proud of myself for never doing the whole Twitter thing.
Of course he does. Did you think differently?
Good thing I did jackshit with my Twitter account and had it fully deactivated. It was hacked and posted some spam ads that I knew nothing about.
So if X-itter accounts were to threaten persons or places that were in the interest of the state to protect that responsibility lies on Musk?
Yes. That's why you face criminal charges and if you dont moderate
Gee wizz, I don't think you understand Capitalism at all. Musk gets the profits and you get the liability.
If only he were also trying to sue advertisers that no longer want to do business with him. It would be the perfect storm of what is good comes to me and what is bad is yours.
I still don't understand how the fuck that worked. Why would any company risk doing business with shxitter after that?
Time to commit crimes with 'our' Twitter account
upload full length movies on there, newer ones preferably. it's elon's fault since he owns it all.
load more comments
(1 replies)
They should totally host a mastodon instance at infowars URL
MinfoWars
m.infowars subdomain
I've already signed up
Unrelated but can someone overdose on Ketamine?
It’s practically impossible sadly. Have to take a absurd amount
yes but I think I saw you have to take like 4 grams
load more comments
(1 replies)
I mean, if someone lets me into their house, points me to a whiteboard with a pen and tells me to write whatever I want so the other people in the house can read it...
Do I own the whiteboard? Or the pen? Or have control over any of it?
No. The owner of the house can lock me out and wipe off or change what I wrote at their leisure.
A better analogy is i hand you a bullhorn and you shout at randos.
Do i own your words, even though it's my bullhorn? No.
Depends, actually.
If you lend it to me privately, no. If you hand it to me on a stage, kinda yes.
No but somebody else can own the creator of what was written on the board. That might be a bit weird in today's terms if it's a person, but if it's a company that wrote that stuff it can legally become somebody else's, which is what is happening with Infowars.
Twitter has always allowed a company to own their own account, and even transfer it and be used by multiple people. For example how Biden's account is used by his staff. But now X starts meddling with this specific case, which is very questionable.
And if you're going to say that "it's his own account"; lawyers were saying that his "personal brand" is too heavily intertwined with Infowars and that it should be part of the Infowars brand.
You do have some control, in the form of copyright. Also the analogy doesn’t hold up well since you’re not using their “pen” and they only let you reach inside through the window. And the audience is outside the house.
And to continue that analogy- Twitter didn't assign the name, the user created it so they hold copyright on the name.
load more comments
(10 replies)
I hadn't logged into Twitter in years. Just signed in to delete my account. He can have it back.
You think it's really deleted in the back end? Adorable
...I don't care.
I left Facebook but I left my account a husk. If the last thing they ever know is that I went to Krispy Kreme and got a pumpkin spice donut in 2017, then that's cool with me.
I kept it because occasionally a dude needs a $50 TV and it's the best place to find a used one.
"After eating the donut, the trail goes cold, Mr. Zuckerberg. We just don't know!*
You missed the point, congrats.
No, I don't. But that's another data point for them to see people leaving their service.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›