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.

  • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    293·
    7 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·
      4 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·
        4 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.