On Monday, X filed an objection in The Onion’s bid to buy InfoWars out of bankruptcy. In the objection, Elon Musk’s lawyers argued that X has “superior ownership” of all accounts on X, that it objects to the inclusion of InfoWars and related Twitter accounts in the bankruptcy auction, and that the court should therefore prevent the transfer of them to The Onion.
The legal basis that X asserts in the filing is not terribly interesting. But what is interesting is that X has decided to involve itself at all, and it highlights that you do not own your followers or your account or anything at all on corporate social media, and it also highlights the fact that Elon Musk’s X is primarily a political project he is using to boost, or stifle, specific viewpoints and help his friends. In the filing, X’s lawyers essentially say—like many other software companies, and, increasingly, device manufacturers as well—that the company’s terms of service grant X’s users a “license” to use the platform but that, ultimately, X owns all accounts on the social network and can do anything that it wants with them.
“Few bankruptcy courts have addressed the issue of ownership of social media accounts, and those courts that have were focused on whether an individual or the individual’s employer owned an account used for business purposes—not whether the social media company had a superior right of ownership over either the individual or the corporation,” Musk’s lawyers write.
The case Musk’s lawyers are referencing here is Vital Pharm’s bankruptcy case, in which a supplement company filed for bankruptcy and the court decided that the Twitter and Instagram accounts @BangEnergyCEO, which were primarily used by its CEO Jack Owoc to promote the brand, were owned by the company, not Owoc. The court determined that the accounts were therefore part of the bankruptcy and could not be kept by Owoc.
Except in exceedingly rare circumstances like the Vital Pharm case, the transfer of social media accounts in bankruptcy from one company to another has been routine. When VICE was sold out of bankruptcy, its new owners, Fortress Investment Group, got all of VICE’s social media accounts and YouTube pages. X, Google, Meta, etc did not object to this transfer because this sort of thing happens constantly and is not controversial. (It should be noted that social media companies regularly do try to prevent the sale of social media accounts on the black market. But they do not usually attempt to block the sale of them as part of the sale of companies or in bankruptcy.)
But in this InfoWars case, X has decided to inject itself into the bankruptcy proceedings. Jones has signaled that Musk has done this in order to help him, and his tweet about it has gone incredibly viral. On a stream of his show after the filing, Jones called this “a major breaking Monday evening news alert that deals with the First Amendment and the people’s fight to reclaim our country from the clutches of the globalists.”
"Elon Musk X Corp entered the case with a lawsuit within it to defend the right of X to not have private handles of people like Alex Jones stripped away. It violates the 13th Amendment against slavery, there are many issues. Today they filed a major brief in the case,” Jones said. “Elon Musk’s X comes to Alex Jones’ defense against democrat attempts to steal Jones’ X identity.”
Musk famously unbanned Jones, then appeared on the same Twitter Spaces broadcast with him. Musk has also tweeted occasionally that he believes The Onion is not funny. Jones, meanwhile, has been ranting and raving about some sort of conspiracy that he believes led a judge via the Deep State to sell InfoWars to The Onion at auction.
X calls itself “the sole owner” of X accounts, and states that it “does not consent” to the sale of the InfoWars accounts, as doing so would “undermine X Corp.’s rightful ownership of the property it licenses to Free Speech Systems [InfoWars], Jones, or any other account holder on the X platform.” Again, X accounts are transferred in bankruptcy all the time with no drama and with no objection from X.
“Looming over the framework [in the Vital Pharm case] was the undeniable reality that social media companies, like X Corp., are the only parties that have truly exclusive control over users’ accounts,” the lawyers write. “X CORP. OWNS THE X ACCOUNTS.”
That a corporate social media company says it owns the social media accounts on its service is probably not surprising. Meta, Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, and ByteDance have run up astronomical valuations by more or getting people to fill their platforms with content for free, and have created and destroyed countless businesses, business models, and industries with their constantly-shifting algorithms and monetization strategies. But to see this fact outlined in such stark terms in a court document makes clear that, for human beings to seize any sort of control over their online lives, we must move toward decentralized, portable forms of social media and must move back toward creating and owning our own platforms and websites.
So if x has superior ownership, then they should be subject to every illegal thing ever posted on X.
Including CSAM posts and other illegal things.
So whos the pedo now Elon?
So whos the pedo now Elon?
I won’t ever get over him larping as a child and tweeting as if he’d want himself as a father.
And all because none of his actual children give two shits about Apartheid Daddy.
Especially if the claim ownership of the Infowars account. They should be added to the debtors for the Sandy Hook families.
Same as the Companies are People bs. They’re people when it comes to bribing politicians, but they have money and are not responsible for evils committed by their companies.
And are essentially immortal entities
- Corporations are people ❌
- Corporations are Gods ✅
Aquinas spoke of that mythical city on the hill…
The judge should say, fine if you want legal precedent that you are the superior owner I’ll give it to you, case closed. Now you will have to respond for every singles illegal thing posted on there since you are the owner.
Hilariously, trump wants to remove the law that says you can’t hold platforms legally at fault for their users. Once that gets repealed, this is a genuine argument. (As far as I know… I’m not a lawyer but that’s my interpretation)
This should be removed (maybe amended so it no longer would apply to corporations, it was originally intended to community sites like forums, Usenet etc).
Though if they would make this change, it likely will make it even worse.
Removed by mod
What the actual fuck?! Just that first paragraph!
On Monday, X filed an objection in The Onion’s bid to buy InfoWars out of bankruptcy. In the objection, Elon Musk’s lawyers argued that X has “superior ownership” of all accounts on X, that it objects to the inclusion of InfoWars and related Twitter accounts in the bankruptcy auction, and that the court should therefore prevent the transfer of them to The Onion.
So they argue that accounts are non transferable, even by court order!!
This is complete bullshit, and should not be taken seriously at all as a legal argument, obviously X has the right to close the accounts afterwards, if they are operated against the terms X has decided. But ONLY if that. It should not be allowed to do it arbitrarily.Not non-transferrable, as that would prevent Elon from claiming @america or the transfer of @POTUS.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Or @X
Or a whole bunch of usernames, for that matter: Elon Musk’s X Has Started Selling Off Old Twitter Handles For Upwards Of $50,000
Hah!!
Ooh, it’s behind a paywall. Do you mind sharing the list please? Gets popcorn
What the onion could do in such case that elon does not want to give the accounts as part of the deal is to send a letter threatening legal action if they do not take down the accounts for infringing on their InfoWars trademark
Oh I like this
You are naive, if you really think that the law still applies to people in Trump’s near proximity.
I think the entire reason they’re doing this is to set the precedent that they can defy court orders.
If X owns all of the accounts, then it sounds like they should be liable for all of the speech from those accounts. I hope people jump on this.
It’s a stupid thing to do anyway. Now every other corporation that uses Xitter as a social marketing tool just got reminded that their account is essentially valueless as it can be removed from them at his whim.
You nailed it on the head—if X owns all X accounts, then X should absolutely be held liable and named as codefendants in all past and future litigation where content posted on X is used in the suit. By asserting ownership over the accounts, X is effectively taking on a level of responsibility for the platform’s use and misuse, akin to how a publisher is held liable for the content it distributes.
This raises serious implications for legal accountability. If X claims ownership, they are asserting control, and with control comes liability. They can’t just cherry-pick the benefits of owning the accounts (like monetization, data, and influence) without accepting the risks, including being dragged into lawsuits where harmful, defamatory, or illegal content originates from their platform.
It would also set a precedent for greater accountability in tech. Platforms often hide behind Section 230 protections to dodge responsibility, but if they step forward and say, ‘We own the content or accounts,’ then they lose the shield of neutrality and should face the consequences accordingly. It’s a slippery slope that X might regret going down if this theory gains traction in courtrooms.
elon just admitted in court that he owns multiple accounts dedicated to sharing csam on the internet.
I don’t know much about law but I assume that you can also be liable for things you don’t own.
If I rent a car I don’t own it but I’m in full control of it so I’m fully responsible if I break any laws with this car.
I think one could argue in a similar way for Xitter accounts.
You could argue that, sure, but their defense of that has already been established and accepted - effectively that the “town square” cannot be liable for the speech of people in it… but if Twitter fully owns all accounts, then the people in the square ARE twitter.
I can’t wait for the Texas and Connecticut families to file a motion to make X liable for the $1.5b too, since they own the Infowars account it’s their responsibility.
Can’t have a safe harbor and ownership.
This I don’t trust the US legal system but it’ll be very funny if the Sandy Hook parents win.
Please let this happen. It’d be fucking hilarious to watch the rat try to squirm out of xitter losing him even more money.
It violates the 13th Amendment against slavery
Uh?
Just hollering bullshit, because in the past if he did that louder and longer it worked for jones.
Okay… so lets say Musk wins, and the infowars handle isn’t transferred.
The Onion should then file an impersonation complaint with X and have the handle handed to them. I would assume in the auction the onion purchased the rights to the trademark InfoWars.
This would be interesting considering people like Elon want to get rid of Section 230. He could be shooting himself in his left foot to prevent himself from shooting himself in his right foot.
X could just hide/delete/forbid the account entirely to avoid this. It’s not impersonation if it doesn’t exist.
Should, but musk is trying to help Alex Jones in a weird way and be a nuisance to the onion. I hope it blows up in his face
They likely just wouldnt post on x at all.
in that case, it sounds to me like the Sandy Hook families should be able to sue X for another 1.6 billion for allowing its accounts to be used to defame and threaten the families.
And I think the onion could sue for copyright infringement or something to at least close the accounts.
Ok. The accounts can be withheld, suspended or whatever.
The Onion is therefore entitled to due compensation from X Corp., as this was considered to be included in the bid. X can have that NFT for just 47 billion dollars, what a deal! /s
Bitch I run my own mastodon instance. I definitely own my social media accounts
lol why though?
Why not just blindly put your trust in the investors behind Bluesky not to screw you over? Every case of that kind of thing happening is in the past and I am looking to the future which looks bright and blue!
This really conflicts with the idea that, as platforms, websites are not legally liable for the content their user’s produce. At least at a high level, it feels like those two should be mutually exclusive. If X owns all of the accounts on its site, it should be legally liable for all of them. If X is not legally liable, it should imply some amount of individual ownership.
Like, yes federation is better and we should be pushing for it, but also, we should be trying to push for better regulation of incumbent social media platforms too if we can. Seems unlikely but we can try.
If they are worth saving at all. Social media is a poor replacement for real human connection.
Those companies are just taking advantage of how isolated and lonely people in general are.
Its social heroin.
Xitter is basically state media at this point. MAGA media, if you prefer, as run by the preferences of President Musk.
A country where money gives you power over even the justice system, is just a joke of country and will eventually collapse on itself.
No it won’t. It will prop itself up on labor exploited from the working class.
It’s the middle class that will collapse. Eventually everybody will be poor. Nobody but the rich will own land. It’ll all be one big exploitation of it’s people. Just as russia has done for 1000 years before us.
That’s the goal, didn’t you know? An entire nation of labor slaves without power, and an entire class of elite without empathy.
And that’s how it’ll collapse. People will burn it to the fucking ground.
you do not own your followers or your account or anything at all on corporate social media
X, and by extention all other social media platforms, would intervene in any and all brands to demand permission for mergers/sales if social media accounts are part of the merger. This is an insane level of megalomania, that goes well beyond “ownership of content posted” online.
The fact that Musk is intervening to protect the most hateful pro-Republican disinformation, while having bought the presidency, and then expecting Supreme court to side with him could be understood as counter to democratic ideals, but its just another step in that direction.
The most likely outcome of a pro-Musk ruling is the onion makes a new lower bid for infowars without the twitter accounts. Maybe Musk bids higher for infowars. There is an anti-trust case for this scenario, but it only applies in a presumed principled democracy.
if twitter owns all the accounts, what does that mean for official state run accounts that are archived and saved for historical purposes?
Next time someone Musk doesn’t like wins an election, then government account can stay with the ruler he would have preferred win the coup. Venezuela and Bolivia are coups he explicitly endorsed.
I’m still reading but ffs- I click ONE x.con source and my in app browser makes me hit back 5 times just to get to lemmy again nothing else pulls that shit but maybe daily news level
That’s why you middle-click all off-site links.
They said in-app browser I imagine they’re on mobile
Long press, open in background.
I don’t disagree but I’d say that there’s a more important lesson here: The concept of ownership is mediated by a legal system that gives the wealthy a special pass. Rich people can pay lawyers to make up concepts like “superior ownership” 'til the cows come home, and any subsequent precedent costs $600/hr to even access. None of us should feel secure under this system about our online lives or our fucking houses, even if we “own” them.
Concepts like “fair”, “balanced”, and “democracy” can not exist under Capitalism, because money is speech and power, and the small elite who control thousands/millions more capital than average control everything thousands/millions times more than average.
I entirely agree with your main point.
Aside from that, the concept of “superior ownership” isn’t something made up any time recently. It’s the notion that there are different types of ownership and some of them take priority over others.
For example, if I have a watch, A steals the watch from me and sells it to you, and then B steals the watch from you, you, me and B all have a claim to it.
B possesses the watch so you need to prove they stole it to show you have a superior claim to ownership. You can show that you bought the watch fair and square from A, which means it looks like your claim is valid, but because it was stolen from me in the first place I have the best claim.It’s not a rich person making up a new legal principle, it’s a rich person trying to use their money and lawyers to buy an outcome because they don’t like one of the parties.
My point wasn’t that in this specific case they made up “superior ownership,” but rather that it was made up as a legal concept at some point in the past, probably by lawyers working for rich people, and it’ll probably never matter to you and me. Like so many legal concepts, it is reasonable, but only rich people can really access it, and, at this point, there are so many of them that they will always have one ready to go when it suits them.
I disagree on this specific one. It’s not an incredibly esoteric concept and is part of every legal dispute involving ownership of anything. It’s legalese for “they don’t own it, I own it”.
