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.
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
126 points (99.2% liked)
News
23599 readers
4490 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
He didn't think that far ahead.
He didn't think
He doesnt think
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.
Doesn't it expose them to at least a little bit of liability? Especially if they loaned it out to a child or something.
So, the argument they made hasn't been successful yet, so "who knows". Just because they make an argument doesn't mean it's accepted.
The judge could very easily say that Twitter does ultimately own the accounts, but that because the user has exclusive access said exclusive access is an asset the user can forfeit as part of legal proceedings.
More than one person can have ownership of a thing, just different senses of ownership. All of them are legally recognized, and some just take precedence over others.
By saying they have a superior claim of ownership, Twitter tacitly acknowledges that the users has a claim of ownership, they just say theirs is stronger.
The judge just gets to decide if a Twitter account is like a borrowed lawnmower where it doesn't get auctioned off on bankruptcy but instead goes back to the owner, or if it's like business rental agreement for office space, where the purchaser of the bankrupt business also picks up the lease, even though it's "more owned" by someone else.
The way policy and such is currently, a platform isn't generally liable for its user generated content if the platform is roughly neutral with regards to the content it publishes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
So they're not generally responsible for what they're users post because they don't pick which bits are visible and which aren't, generally.
Rich people aren’t liable for their actions.
They don't get arrested or charged, they get letters from the DoJ asking them to stop please.
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).
The problem with citing those Provisions is those companies have never claimed direct ownership of said accounts. This is an entirely new legal argument.
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 insulated 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.
Weird, because their help articles suggest giving account handles over in the case of trademark infringement. https://help.x.com/en/search-results?limit=10&offset=0&q=Trademark&searchPath=%2Fcontent%2Fhelp-twitter%2Fen&sort=relevance
You don't expect Elon to read things, do you? He has important one-word tweets to post!
Regimental...
Those were written by sane people before Muskrat took over and fired everyone that had any ounce of integrity.
In 2022, Musk was hesitant to allow Jones back on the social media platform after he had been banned years earlier. Musk specifically said at the time that he wouldn’t allow Jones back on Twitter because his first child died and suggested that Jones had caused too much pain to grieving parents after the Sandy Hook massacre.
“My firstborn child died in my arms. I felt his last heartbeat. I have no mercy for anyone who would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame,” Musk tweeted on Nov. 20, 2022, roughly a month after buying the platform.
I'm surprised people still have any respect for this hypocrite.
After the election, I'm so not surprised at all.
In fact, I haven't been even a little surprised these people have fans since 2016.
Oligarchs only care about acquiring more and more wealth. Nothing else. Not you. Not their families. And they definitely don't care about whatever they said 10 minutes ago.
You don't acquire that much wealth by being a good person.
OK, but why should this block the sale? The twitter handle is only a small part of the Infowars assets.
My tinfoil take: There’s something in the Twitter DM between him and Alex Jones that NEEDS to stay private.
And you think the twitter CEO can't delete that?
Ok then. Close the account.
Yeah. This won't hasten the exodus to Bluesky or anything
It won't. People on on twitter cause they say the engagement isn't the same everywhere else. But I think its just bots.
I've started noticing embedded bluesky posts in news stories instead of embedded tweets. I think it might.
Sure, but that doesn't mean he owns any trademarks that might appear within those account names, like, say, Infowars or some such. He can give the account to whoever he wants. But he can't protect them from being sued for trademark infringement if they use it.
Only if they sue because they are pretending to be infowars. I can register “google” as a username all I want and they can’t actually stop me as long as I don’t pretend to be them or use their logo.
What if they put a blue tick on it?
Straight to jail.
Just a reminder... melon head is a junkie. Everything he says is a drugged up delusion. Nothing to see here, just walk on by.
You could say he's under the influence, but as much as I dislike the guy and want him to fail, I cannot discount that he knows what he's doing. He's a billionaire, that bought a media company to further his business and personal interests. Just like Bezos. He feels he swung the US election and is fuelled by hubris and self-importance. A right winger using his media company to help out right wingers. Was it his choice or a favour for Donny, who knows. I do suspect Tesla and SpaceX are going to get a nice smooth run in terms of contracts, funding and legal disputes
Dude is wanna be CEO of two companies, has no involvement in five other companies, has twelve kids with his employees he doesn't take care of, and now wants to help run the US government when he couldn't run a McDonald's. He is spread thinner than a jar of mayonnaise on a thousand loaves.
He has a team of handlers whose job is to literally keep him away from anything important. Not only does he not know what the fuck he is doing he is failing his kids, companies, and humanity.
He bought a company with other peoples money and let them turn it into a propaganda machine to extort and sell influence around the world through deception and lies. He is Alex Jones Jr. with more money and more reach.
A self admitted drug addict that thinks he knows more about manufacturing than any human alive. Once you peel back the lies and deception you have a Nepo baby manchild sexual assaulting conman.
But sure he has a lot of money. I guess that is all it takes for some people to drop trough, spread them cheeks, and get ready for daddy Muskrat.
So he’s going to take his ball and go home..?
More like, he’s taking his ball, and you go home.
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.
he's more like one of donvict's hemorrhoids.
The hero of free speech everyone.
Feels like a great time for a competitor to explicitly state that you in fact, do own your account on their site. Nuance to that as tech bros is always gonna be tech bros (and blue sky is also tech bros, just with temporary infective to say "nah man, it's cool baby..." for the time being while they build market share). But basically stating that you have full ownership and responsibility to manage your account, and that management transfers along with any kind of power of attorney shift or through any other related court actions
Mean the one I deleted a while ago?
naw. the one you thought you deleted a while ago.
You mean the one Elon uses now?
So if you threaten someone on Twitter it's really Elon threatening them? Interesting.
No, just Elon threatening himself.
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
does this mean whoever bought dril's account has to give it back
But they have been transferred. They've taken accounts away from people.
view more: next ›