You’ve got to assume that Twitter can revoke any users access at any time for any reason under its existing terms and conditions. This is a predictable douche move by Musk but the original account holder very likely has zero recourse.
The article quotes the TOS that give only one reason why a person might lose their twiX handle, and it’s not “Elon Musk wants it”, so there’s probably going to be a line of lawyers wanting to take this case.
They should have at least offered to give him the twitter handle. haha
TOS aren’t legally bindingTOS aren’t always legally binding, and they’re a private company, appropriating an account stored on their private servers for their own service only. There’s no legal standing There’s probably no legal standing to do anything about this. It’s just shitty and immature, not illegal.
(Technically, the TOS even says they can take accounts for trademark violations, and since Meta owns the trademark on the use of ‘X’, clearly they’re just taking it so they can give it to Meta and help them enforce their trademark.)
Source on them not being legally binding? They have a mixed track record but I’ve never seen anyone flat out say they aren’t legally binding. Sometimes they are; sometimes they are not.
I am no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that something pre-dating the trademark is grandfathered in. Hence why Steam uses steampowered.com and not steam.com
Utility bills aren’t binding because they’re subsidized. They’re binding because they are contracts, and contract law is a thing that exists.
It’s a complicated thing and there are many restrictions and conditions on what makes a valid contract and what kinds of things are and aren’t allowed. Many Terms of Service violate contract law and thus wind up not being enforceable, but it is absolutely not correct to say that Terms of Service are in general not binding.
Looks like they’re binding if they follow very specific criteria; I don’t know if TwitterX’s qualify, but I’ll accept that my above statement is probably wrong.
That said, they do have a carveout for trademark violations which technically this is, because X is trademarked, just not by Twitter.
It’s also specifically about a trade. If I had a vitamin company called X and a vacuum cleaner company called steam, neither of those companies could legally have anything to say about it.
TOS aren’t legally binding only when they are not compliant with existing laws! For example when a hotel says in it’s TOS “we can murder you in your sleep” that is not binding, but when they say “we can expell you for wearing a pink polo shirt” that is legally binding
I had a landlord who had a really hard time understanding that state law specified what was legal for them to put in a rental contract, and that if someone signed a contract with illegal provisions, they were not bound to follow it.
He thinks that lawsuits are great publicity. Plus he apparently has some sort of psychological defiance disorder, so he would love to say “oh yeah? Make me!”
Microsoft and Meta both own trademarks on the letter X. Trademarks are always context-sensitive, meaning multiple entities can trademark the same sequence of letters in different contexts.
Your first sentence is so unbelievably and obviously wrong that you there’s no way we should trust any of your other thoughts on the matter. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
You know, everyone should start calling the service twiX, just to irritate the candy bar company, which is actually a multi-billion dollar conglomerate that does care how its brands are perceived.
But, as I mentioned above, Twix the candy bar and TwiX the portmanteau for Twitter/X exist in different product spaces. Consumers are unlikely to be confused between the two. I still wouldn’t mind it catching on, haha.
They don’t even allow me to delete my account. They suspended me (never posted anything) and now I’d need to beg to be unbanned, just to get off Mr. Elons wild ride. I’m in the EU so I’m thinking about making use of my right to be forgotten.
Whether or not they can sue, I think the point is everyone knows that one could sell a one letter Twitter account for tens of thousands (or, could have 2 years ago, anyway). So, just that Musk is a gigantic dickhead.
Which makes his desire to have x be the everything app so much more horrifying. That level of consolidated power is horrifying on its own, and it’s even more horrifying knowing the person running it enjoys abusing his power.
You’ve got to assume that Twitter can revoke any users access at any time for any reason under its existing terms and conditions. This is a predictable douche move by Musk but the original account holder very likely has zero recourse.
The article quotes the TOS that give only one reason why a person might lose their twiX handle, and it’s not “Elon Musk wants it”, so there’s probably going to be a line of lawyers wanting to take this case.
They should have at least offered to give him the twitter handle. haha
TOS aren’t legally bindingTOS aren’t always legally binding, and they’re a private company, appropriating an account stored on their private servers for their own service only.There’s no legal standingThere’s probably no legal standing to do anything about this. It’s just shitty and immature, not illegal.(Technically, the TOS even says they can take accounts for trademark violations, and since Meta owns the trademark on the use of ‘X’, clearly they’re just taking it so they can give it to Meta and help them enforce their trademark.)
Edit: Correcting misleading blanket statement
Source on them not being legally binding? They have a mixed track record but I’ve never seen anyone flat out say they aren’t legally binding. Sometimes they are; sometimes they are not.
I am no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that something pre-dating the trademark is grandfathered in. Hence why Steam uses steampowered.com and not steam.com
Don’t you love it when people just make grand statements about law with zero evidence or sourcing to back it up?
Apparently, if I don’t pay my bills, utility companies can’t actually do anything because terms aren’t legally binding. Who knew!
Bad example, because utility bills usually are legally binding, as utilities are often subsidized by local governments.
Utility bills aren’t binding because they’re subsidized. They’re binding because they are contracts, and contract law is a thing that exists.
It’s a complicated thing and there are many restrictions and conditions on what makes a valid contract and what kinds of things are and aren’t allowed. Many Terms of Service violate contract law and thus wind up not being enforceable, but it is absolutely not correct to say that Terms of Service are in general not binding.
Looks like they’re binding if they follow very specific criteria; I don’t know if
TwitterX’s qualify, but I’ll accept that my above statement is probably wrong.That said, they do have a carveout for trademark violations which technically this is, because X is trademarked, just not by Twitter.
This stance is only valid if Twitter gave the handle to one of those other x-trademarks, and probably only if one of them demanded it.
It’s also specifically about a trade. If I had a vitamin company called X and a vacuum cleaner company called steam, neither of those companies could legally have anything to say about it.
TOS aren’t legally binding only when they are not compliant with existing laws! For example when a hotel says in it’s TOS “we can murder you in your sleep” that is not binding, but when they say “we can expell you for wearing a pink polo shirt” that is legally binding
I had a landlord who had a really hard time understanding that state law specified what was legal for them to put in a rental contract, and that if someone signed a contract with illegal provisions, they were not bound to follow it.
Microsoft, not Meta, owns the trademark, iirc.
Meta owns the trademark specifically for use with social media, which they bought from Microsoft, by my understanding.
General source
I have to wonder whether Musk knew Meta had the trademark, and intentionally used it in order to rile them up.
… Nah, that would require actual planning on his part.
He thinks that lawsuits are great publicity. Plus he apparently has some sort of psychological defiance disorder, so he would love to say “oh yeah? Make me!”
It wouldn’t surprise me if it was just some billionaire schoolyard bully shit.
Microsoft and Meta both own trademarks on the letter X. Trademarks are always context-sensitive, meaning multiple entities can trademark the same sequence of letters in different contexts.
Your first sentence is so unbelievably and obviously wrong that you there’s no way we should trust any of your other thoughts on the matter. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
You know, everyone should start calling the service twiX, just to irritate the candy bar company, which is actually a multi-billion dollar conglomerate that does care how its brands are perceived.
But, as I mentioned above, Twix the candy bar and TwiX the portmanteau for Twitter/X exist in different product spaces. Consumers are unlikely to be confused between the two. I still wouldn’t mind it catching on, haha.
It’d still irritate them due to the connotations, regardless of how legally actionable their irritation would be.
Just make sure that you always explain it like “It’s TwiX, you know, like the candy bar! They must be affiliated.”
They don’t even allow me to delete my account. They suspended me (never posted anything) and now I’d need to beg to be unbanned, just to get off Mr. Elons wild ride. I’m in the EU so I’m thinking about making use of my right to be forgotten.
Whether or not they can sue, I think the point is everyone knows that one could sell a one letter Twitter account for tens of thousands (or, could have 2 years ago, anyway). So, just that Musk is a gigantic dickhead.
sounds like… landed gentry
Which makes his desire to have x be the everything app so much more horrifying. That level of consolidated power is horrifying on its own, and it’s even more horrifying knowing the person running it enjoys abusing his power.