407
Elon Musk parody accounts no longer required to advertise themselves as parody, since they really are Elon Musk now.
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?
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?
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
Alex Jones had no say in what was being sold. The Court seized his assets and sold them to pay the people he owes.
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.
probably a good tactic
They should totally host a mastodon instance at infowars URL
I've already signed up
MinfoWars
m.infowars subdomain
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.
It was always this way, on all platforms.
He does though. Read the fine print. You are just allowed to use it. Not really surprising.
Unrelated but can someone overdose on Ketamine?
It’s practically impossible sadly. Have to take a absurd amount
Yes, but that means unconsciousness (and later death).
load more comments
(1 replies)
I hadn't logged into Twitter in years. Just signed in to delete my account. He can have it back.
same, deleted an inactive account.
load more comments
(9 replies)
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.
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.
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)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
Of course he does. Did you think differently?
He does. Same with any other platform you do not “own” your account. You have credentials to login to an account you created.
This should not be news to anyone. This applies to all social media, all entertainment, and every other account you use online.
Which is why it's really important to have some trust /reputation if using these services.
Why anyone would use a service run by a fascist entitled madman who literally represents the very worst version of humanity is beyond me and they deserve whatever they get.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, you are correct.
The platform owns the platform.
You have given the platform permission to use anything on the platform however they want.
They own the content you put on the platform.
They own the content you put on the platform.
This will depend on the terms of service agreement. Some of them try to get away with this, while others just give themselves an irrevocable license to use content you publish on their platform.
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.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
407 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
1453 readers
416 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