Elon Musk and company take @x handle from its original user. He got zero dollars for it.
Elon Musk and company take @x handle from its original user. He got zero dollars for it.
Here's how it went down.
You're viewing a single thread.
Yeah why would they pay the "owner"? It's their platform they do whatever they want. What a dumb thing to complain about.
There is this thing called decency. You might have heard of it.
Yeah they even offered him some bullshit as compensation that they were not required to. Don't expect decency from a huge company like Twitter.
Don't expect decency from a huge company like Twitter.
But we should.
Because that would be the decent thing to do.
Yeah we should totally expect decency from the social platform filled with Nazis that is run by a billionaire edgelord catering to them.
We should expect decency from corporation in general and if we really had the balls, we'd all be out in the streets demanding it.
remove limited liability and watch them suddenly grow a conscience
We shouldn't anticipate it, but we should expect it. I think you're getting caught on the other definitions of 'expect'.
I like how we all like to pretend that these companies are not run by people. Company is not being an asshole people who were in charge of this transition were.
It’s their platform they do whatever they want.
Yes.
What a dumb thing to complain about.
I mean if I had a social media account just taken from me without warning or recourse I'd at the very least be irritated. How about you give me your account password and just let me take over? You can just go make a new one.
The "dumb thing" to complain about is that they did not pay him any money. It's a dick move that they took it but I don't get why anyone would think they would buy it off the "owner". He was offered some gestures and apparently expected them to want or take it.
The “dumb thing” to complain about is that they did not pay him any money.
They'd pay a celebrity for it. Why should we be any different?
It’s a dick move
Yes that's literally what everyone is saying. We aren't asserting "rights" on twitter or something.
Because a celebrity has clout to make a big stink of it. The headline isn't only "Mean twitter took account from user!" but contains "He got zero dollars for it." as if he was entitled to that in any way.
Yes that’s literally what everyone is saying. We aren’t asserting “rights” on twitter or something.
I believe that too, but look at the replies - there are people who literally believe they own their account or compare it to personal property or their bank accounts.
We must be in different threads because I'm not seeing that. Unless you want to stretch that one comment about identity theft a fair bit.
Then you might actually be in a different thread. One guy believes this is the same as the bank taking their money and never returning it and another one believes this is like taking people's belongings because they enter your property.
Why would the bank give you your money, its their business and you gave it to them.
Contrary to Twitter banking is regulated and governed by actual laws. It's a completely different beast. Go ahead and google who the owner of the money in your account is and how that is regulated.
Its literally regulated as well, a account in general cant just be taken...
You might have dropped this (◠‿・)—","
Not defending the Musk here, but literally it's not your money anymore as soon as you put it in a bank account.
The money you put in your account belongs to the bank, and the account functions as an I.O.U.. A very privileged one compared to other debts, and in most cases redeemable without notice, but you're in fact just another creditor.
That's not how banks work.
It's certainly how banks work where I live, and presuming we are talking about the US here, I did a quick skim through the first few results on google and there mostly seems to be agreement that it is a debtor/creditor relationship.
How would you describe the legal arrangements of a bank account then?
Former banker here. You're just fucking wrong about that. You've said zero true things.
Well I'm interested now. It certainly is the case where I live, and presuming we are talking about the US here, I did a quick skim through the first few results on google and they seem to agree that it's a debtor/creditor relationship.
How else would you describe the legal arrangements of a bank account then?
You own the money in your account, simple as that for individual accounts.
The transaction is "I give the bank money, and they have to give it back later". How can we arrange that legally without transferring ownership? I only know these ways:
Bailment: That would mean the bank keeps the physical bills (or other valuables) in a proverbial or literal safe with my name on it, to return the exact same items later. Of course banks offer that service, but that's not what we're talking about.
Trust: The bank takes my money and invests it on my behalf. It does not go on the bank's books, and they cannot use my money for their own purposes (e.g. as security for loans, to fulfil capital requirements, invest it themselves and keep the proceeds, etc.). This is obviously not the case.
Agency: The bank takes my money and executes transactions on my behalf, according to my orders. Again, obviously not the case.
Am I missing something? Is there some special law for bank accounts? I'm genuinely interested.
Think about it this way, if I'm going after your money, do I sue you, or do I sue the bank?
It's funny you mentioned bailment, the bank is absolutely required to keep enough cash on hand in order to satisfy what the FDIC deems to be a reasonable amount of coverage for their deposit accounts. (search "demand deposit account")
If I owe you money, and somebody else owes me money, yea of course you would sue me, not that other person. But I could write over some of the debt I'm owed to you to clear my debt to you.
And isn't this exactly how debt enforcement works? You win in court and the court tells the bank (or forces me to tell the bank) to take x amount out of my account and put it into your account. The debt I was owed gets transferred to you, which clears my debt to you.
No, it doesn't work like that at all. The difference is in the demand. You go to your bank and you demand the money in your account and you get it, simple as that. You can't do that with debt. Me owing you a dollar doesn't mean you have a dollar to spend. Ease of collection is literally the most important aspect of what we're discussing.
Of course you can "spend" debt, but only if the debtor is very reputable. Consider the old example: I ask you to fix my car. I don't have any money on me to repay you, so I give you an I.O.U.. You go get a haircut, but don't have any money on you either. The hairdresser knows I'm a standup guy so he takes my I.O.U. as payment instead. Later he comes to me to collect, I repay him and we rip up the I.O.U.. See how it can be spent like money (we could of course add any number of people in between who trust me where my I.O.U. changes hands)?
Part of the agreement with the bank is that they guarantee (to a reasonable degree, as the FDIC puts it) to be available for collection in cash at any time. That of course makes them an extremely reliable debtor, and therefore their I.O.U.s (a.k.a. the money in your account) are virtually globally accepted as payment (not least because of the government heavily regulating the matter). See the parallels?
Also, I still would like to know what the legal nature of a bank account is if not debt. I think I've ruled out Bailment, Trust, and Agency. What else is it?
Going on a tangent here, I think what cannot be understated is the power dynamic intrinsic in debt agreements. Usually, the creditor gains a considerable amount of power over the debtor, especially if the latter fails to repay his debt (the threat is foreclosure, imprisonment, etc.). It may be difficult to see a bank account as a debtor/creditor relation, precisely because this power gradient is inverted. The bank is the debtor, but somehow they retain all the power in the relationship.
Consider what happens if they cannot pay up (during a bank run for example): it is not the bank and the bankers that are under physical threat, but its creditors (the account holders), because obviously without money they cannot survive.
If by “money” you mean the physical dollar bills you put in the ATM, then yes.
That absolutely not how shit works.
You got downvoted to hell, but you're absolutely right. The fact that FDIC exists should be evidence enough to anyone with a functional brain that depositors in a bank are creditors and do not retain ownership of their literal deposit.
I wonder what other arrangement it could even possibly constitute.
Bailment? That would mean physically locking the bills that you deposit in a safe that you rent, which is possible I guess, but not what we're talking about here.
Trust? This would mean the deposit does not go on the bank's books, and they cannot use it for their own purposes. This is clearly not the case, at the very least since investment banks and savings banks were merged.
Agency? That would mean the bank uses your money to enact transactions on your behalf, again, clearly not the case.
That leaves the only other form of "I give you money and you give it back later", namely debt.
No one is owed anything, but not compensating the original owner further erodes what little trust was left in the company. You wouldn't want to spend resources building a brand on a platform where your name can suddenly get snatched away at some billionaire's whim.
Absolutely true. But apparently the headlines for this event are all "he got no money for it!"
Up until it was taken from him, he would have been able to sell it for a shit tonne of money. I think it's easy to understand why it was shitty of Twitter yo just snatch it
It’s their platform they do whatever they want
Their platform only has value because people use it. Mistreat your users, they go elsewhere and suddenly your platform becomes worthless.
the main problem with this is that with them doing it without asking or time to prepare all the people the guy knew where lost or have a problem finding him.
And the huy was seemingly not even a nobody but instead had a company so even more company contacts could get lost or customers wanting to directly reach out to him could sent private data to a 3 party (twitter) about confidential informations.Secondly it says that the company can and will take over accounts when they have some reason, even if it is only the name.
That means the trust in the handle gets completly broken because it could be a twitter account in just a few seconds without warning.
So they have the power to take over an official governement or news account without warning and only leaving a reason. This is theoretical but if there is a news station with a handle like "xnews" i can really expect that it gets taken over in some time in the future.I agree with all of this. I just think it's idiotic to complain that they didn't pay him. Twitter handles are not "owned" by the user and the platform can and will do with them whatever they like at any time.
Because there's precedent that handles have value (on the order of thousands of USD). They're taking value from a customer. It'd be interesting to see what swag they offered in exchange, but considering the guy's net worth, he could have afforded some decency. I mean, Gmail can just take your email address to, but it is how many identify themselves in business, so it can harm them financially. Sure, that's the risk with doing that, but it is what it is. Musk could have generated some good will but instead generated more bad publicity. I'm beginning to think he has no PR on staff or just surrounds himself with people who never say no.
Is there a precedent for Twitter buying an account "back" from a user? IIRC all deals regarding Twitter accounts have been made between users.
The precedent is that the handle has value. It's a bad look when a company destroys value for a user, regardless of whether they have the right to or not. The internet is full of people complaining when Google shuts down a YouTube channel. It's essentially the same thing. You expect a good reason or exchange to occur to make the customer whole.
I don't understand where your confusion lies. The guy got screwed over for being a loyal user of the service, despite Musk not owning it for that whole duration.
The guy was offered swag, but I couldn't find details of what it was. And as far as I can tell, this isn't really decrying the lack of money. Just how they handled the situation as a whole.
You understand how it's an asshole move, but don't understand why someone would expect some compensation for the dick move? When someone gives their spouse some roses because they acted like an ass, are you confused by the roses?
Why do you assume that complaining is the same as saying Twitter isn't allowed to do this? I can still think it's shitty without thinking they aren't allowed to do it.
I think it's dumb to go "He got zero dollars for it." as it sounds like he was owed anything. I also feel that it creates confusion with people being paid for a TLD they owned (or "squatted" on) which is something very different from having a Twitter handle. But apparently that's just me.
Why do you CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARE?
They certainly can do whatever they want, but folks are still able to call musk out for being a bully.
It's the same reasoning behind folks confusing freedom of speech with freedom from consequences of their speech.
So what you're saying is you approve of identity theft. Gotcha.
Interpreting this as me approving of Musk's action is just even more retarded than buying Twitter and renaming it to X.
Interpreting your words just shows how much you don't give a shit that someone lost their username because some dumb rich prick likes the letter X.
You'd be whistling a different tune if it was your username.
Yeah you are reading into my post whatever you want to read. I was always talking about them complaining "He got zero dollards for it." as if he was in any way entitled to that. I'm sure it sucks for the user that Twitter just took the account but I really don't give a crap about the Twitter shitshow.
Hey, I'm with ya there, to hell with Twitter, but still, people literally make, build up and sell user accounts every day. Elon is one of the richest dudes in the world, the least he could have done was compensated the original account owner.
I do not get how you're so confused.
It's not that he was "entitled" to money, it's that money would have made taking his handle less of a dick move. Elon is a multi billionaire, he could have thrown a tens of thousands of dollars at this dude and had a good PR situation for his generosity, and not even noticed the dip in his bank account. Instead the story is that he's an asshole who treats his users like shit if they have something he wants.
So here we are, calling him an asshole. How is that confusing?
I'm not confused and I agree that he's an asshole. I still think its dumb to expect to get paid by Twitter when they take over your handle. Musk is not about good PR or good will, Hwang is lucky he wasn't called a pedo by Musk - yet. And there are indeed people here who believe they are entitled to compensation and think they own their stupid Twitter name. How is that confusing?
TIL if anyone carries anything valuable onto my property, it entitles me to take it from them
My property, my rules /s
TIL the original user of the "@x" account owned it and brought it to Twitter who then took it from him.
Bingo
You might be surprised to learn that you do in fact not "own" your Twitter handle and Twitter is not required to buy it off of you if they want it.
Oh really? Wow, maybe if I licked more boots it would make me smarter enough to "understand" this
What you should have posted was nothing.