Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A few paragraphs down we learn that it wasn't actually Musk himself, but X Corp.

"Put simply, accounts are inherently part of X Corp.'s Services and their 'use,'" the company said in Monday's court filing. "A user must use X Corp.'s Services to create an account in the first instance, and to continue using the account going forward."

I'm not a !lawyers but this sounds totally normal.

Something something hate journ*lists enough

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ask google, or facebook, or any other internet corp the same question get the exact same answer.

Btw, it goes "You don't hate journ*lists enough You think you do but you don't", don't disrespect gospel just because it's become normie, god is always watching you.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You are watching me? :soycry:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Don't they not want to do this though? If they own these accounts, theyre responsible for them. Which means any law-violating content that somehow makes it past filters is the responsibility of Twitter?

I keep seeing full movies posted there. Could hollywood not sue the frick out of Twitter due to that?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

read the full article, it's access to services (i.e. the account) not the content posted / how the service is used. Still, Musk was posting about blocking the sale so it's not "typical"

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I thought X/Twitter claimed they owned all content you published to their website.

I figure every social media company ever says the same thing, although I realllllly don't think it would hold up in court in every instance. More of a case of "write the terms to be as biased in our favor as legally possible, then make them more biased and let the courts figure it out"

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

this came up when reddit was restoring deleted comments in the api saga lul

they own the rights to it or something but i think it's something called section 230 that makes it so they don't have to worry about a bunch of copyright shit from people posting movie clips and etc

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My non-lawyer understanding is they have a license to reproduce it, but they don't own it.

This licensing sometimes surprises people when a site exerts some rights over the content posted—by republishing it after deletion, or using it in promotional material, or charging people for access to it or whatever. But you don't relinquish all your own rights to your own content by uploading it to twitter. If you did, I'm certain large media companies like Disney would never post anything there.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As long as they take action and delete shit when brought to their attention, they should be mostly covered.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.