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
    1231·
    23 days 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
      293·
      23 days 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.

      • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        1·
        20 days ago

        Doesn’t it expose them to at least a little bit of liability? Especially if they loaned it out to a child or something.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          20 days ago

          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.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      6·
      23 days 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·
        23 days 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
          4·
          22 days 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 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.