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.

  • Tuxman@sh.itjust.works
    51·
    2 hours ago

    My tinfoil take: There’s something in the Twitter DM between him and Alex Jones that NEEDS to stay private.

    • Auli@lemmy.caEnglish
      21·
      2 hours ago

      It won’t. People on on twitter cause they say the engagement isn’t the same everywhere else. But I think its just bots.

  • Zier@fedia.io
    51·
    6 hours ago

    Just a reminder… melon head is a junkie. Everything he says is a drugged up delusion. Nothing to see here, just walk on by.

    • IcyToes@sh.itjust.works
      1·
      3 hours ago

      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

  • JWBananas@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    10 hours ago

    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.

    • whithom
      1·
      7 hours ago

      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.

  • pivot_root@lemmy.world
    34·
    11 hours ago

    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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 hours ago

      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.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    1081·
    13 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
      233·
      13 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
      4·
      12 hours 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
        6·
        12 hours 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
          3·
          11 hours 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.

  • crawancon@lemm.ee
    24·
    13 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.

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    11·
    13 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