Why is this news? It is their platform. You have your handle at their discretion. Getting paid for it? Hahahaha. Riiiight. This isn’t some domain that is actually owned. You own literally nothing on social media platforms. Whoever theorized he’d be paid is moronic and a perfect example of a twit.
You can complain, but that doesn’t make it news worthy. People feel entitled to demand things of a free service. Now if you paid for it, you’d be on to something.
When talking about paying for a handle they give out, that’s where this discussion goes. No legal obligation to pay for what they already own and can repurpose. A public discussion means nothing if you’re going to just steer clear if the fact some idiots thought he’d be paid for a twit handle.
That doesn’t make it ethical or absolve the abuse of power by the host.
Owning a thing doesn’t mean anything you do with it is ethical or void of any abuse. If I own something and have the community help me develop it, there are unspoken values and expectations that violating would make me a shit head and the more people I rug pull the greater the violation I put out there in the world. The more you rely on the community the more these violations matter.
And yet, it means jack all since you have 0 control over it. You can cry foul all you want, but the only thing that matters is whether or not you leave. Their power, and ability to abuse it, stems solely from that. Having a discussion of ethics when Musk is involved… Just go yell at a wall.
This is a blazingly hot take but you are entirely correct, and people need to hear it. People will scream “FUCK SPEZ” while logging in to 400 different reddit tabs daily and continuing to feed a corrupt (and soon to be) corporate entity.
I’d be more upset if this was something actually important like a government website or something people’s lives depend on, but yeah, it’s not. It’s just entertainment. Folks need to move on.
If you are thinking of building a brand on twitter (or X) or have an existing brand, it is important to know that twitter (or X) are willing just take your name away from you if they feel like it without recourse.
Of course it is always technically possible to take a user name. But most sites make it clear that they wont risk damaging brands by protecting against fake clones and allowing companies to keep their user names. That is why it is news.
Sounds like a you problem if you’re relying on a social media service to help you build a brand. If you pay, you have legal recourse. If you’re there for free advertising, sucks to base your brand on hopes and dreams.
I mean you agree to that when you sign up on their service so you should know better than to build your entire identity on something you dont own. Just like you wouldnt have Lemmy be your one point of a brand on someone elses instance because you dont know if it will shut down tomorrow
Its their platform and their reputation. If some users don’t like what “Musk” do, then they have right to make and read news about it, regardless of de jure rights, EULA and whatnot.
I’m not insinuating it wouldn’t be bad press for them. It’s simply the reality of being on someone else’s platform. You exist on their service at their pleasure. They can shut everything down tomorrow and you are owed nothing, but that does not free them of criticism.
It’s showing a rather funny lack of tact, soft skills and PR skills. Google can take your Gmail account too, but it’s rather unheard of (say Google launches a product name “GreatDay” - it’s absolutely unheard of for Google to just grab the “GreatDay” handle from Gmail - in fact such a move would sent terror chills up many marketing departments around the world honestly).
I’m not going to blame you for not understanding just how ridiculous this is, but this sends all the wrong messages - i.e. could I pay Elon to grab someone else’s Twitter handle because I can make a better business claim for it? That sure is what this seems to imply
It’s news because as the owners of information channels can do as they please, it’s shitty when they don’t even pretend to be neutral. Which is why they usually do. Not a hard thing to follow and no, thinking that a payment would be issued isn’t a sign of a “twit,” it’s just one way they could have not seemed like dicks who do as they please.
Why is this news? It is their platform. You have your handle at their discretion. Getting paid for it? Hahahaha. Riiiight. This isn’t some domain that is actually owned. You own literally nothing on social media platforms. Whoever theorized he’d be paid is moronic and a perfect example of a twit.
Doesn’t it come across as unethical and wrong like an abuse of power to you?
Sure it’s wrong, but the real point is no one is surprised Musk did something to make someone feel like shit. It’s his goal
The better move is to let the platform slip away into irrelevancy.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I think arguing that massive websites can do whatever they want and no one should ever complain is pretty moronic.
You can complain, but that doesn’t make it news worthy. People feel entitled to demand things of a free service. Now if you paid for it, you’d be on to something.
I mean, “they are not legally obligated to [anything]” is always a stupid argument.
This isn’t a court of law, it’s a public discussion
When talking about paying for a handle they give out, that’s where this discussion goes. No legal obligation to pay for what they already own and can repurpose. A public discussion means nothing if you’re going to just steer clear if the fact some idiots thought he’d be paid for a twit handle.
That doesn’t make it ethical or absolve the abuse of power by the host.
Owning a thing doesn’t mean anything you do with it is ethical or void of any abuse. If I own something and have the community help me develop it, there are unspoken values and expectations that violating would make me a shit head and the more people I rug pull the greater the violation I put out there in the world. The more you rely on the community the more these violations matter.
And yet, it means jack all since you have 0 control over it. You can cry foul all you want, but the only thing that matters is whether or not you leave. Their power, and ability to abuse it, stems solely from that. Having a discussion of ethics when Musk is involved… Just go yell at a wall.
This is a blazingly hot take but you are entirely correct, and people need to hear it. People will scream “FUCK SPEZ” while logging in to 400 different reddit tabs daily and continuing to feed a corrupt (and soon to be) corporate entity.
I’d be more upset if this was something actually important like a government website or something people’s lives depend on, but yeah, it’s not. It’s just entertainment. Folks need to move on.
If you are thinking of building a brand on twitter (or X) or have an existing brand, it is important to know that twitter (or X) are willing just take your name away from you if they feel like it without recourse.
Of course it is always technically possible to take a user name. But most sites make it clear that they wont risk damaging brands by protecting against fake clones and allowing companies to keep their user names. That is why it is news.
Sounds like a you problem if you’re relying on a social media service to help you build a brand. If you pay, you have legal recourse. If you’re there for free advertising, sucks to base your brand on hopes and dreams.
I mean you agree to that when you sign up on their service so you should know better than to build your entire identity on something you dont own. Just like you wouldnt have Lemmy be your one point of a brand on someone elses instance because you dont know if it will shut down tomorrow
Its their platform and their reputation. If some users don’t like what “Musk” do, then they have right to make and read news about it, regardless of de jure rights, EULA and whatnot.
I’m not insinuating it wouldn’t be bad press for them. It’s simply the reality of being on someone else’s platform. You exist on their service at their pleasure. They can shut everything down tomorrow and you are owed nothing, but that does not free them of criticism.
Except copyright and pattents if applicable, you cant claim a capital letter, but you can your branding (style and context behind the letter).
It’s showing a rather funny lack of tact, soft skills and PR skills. Google can take your Gmail account too, but it’s rather unheard of (say Google launches a product name “GreatDay” - it’s absolutely unheard of for Google to just grab the “GreatDay” handle from Gmail - in fact such a move would sent terror chills up many marketing departments around the world honestly).
I’m not going to blame you for not understanding just how ridiculous this is, but this sends all the wrong messages - i.e. could I pay Elon to grab someone else’s Twitter handle because I can make a better business claim for it? That sure is what this seems to imply
It’s news because as the owners of information channels can do as they please, it’s shitty when they don’t even pretend to be neutral. Which is why they usually do. Not a hard thing to follow and no, thinking that a payment would be issued isn’t a sign of a “twit,” it’s just one way they could have not seemed like dicks who do as they please.