.webp?h=8 "Fedora (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) - Reminds me of 2004")
Elon Musk: 'I own your Twitter account' 
https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-says-he-owns-everyones-twitter-account-in-bizarre-alex-jones-court-filing-2000530503
Top Poster of the Day:
peepeehands
Current Registered Users: 28,684
Welcome to the Marsey News Network, the official news hole of rdrama! This is where you post anything that happened on the news. Politics, general news, good news, any new in any topic that doesn't have it's own hole from any source is welcome! However, if you post an unreliable source, it may be flaired appropriately. Wingcucks welcome and slapfights encouraged!
Rules:
1. Follow sitewide rules
2. Post News
3. Have Fun! Don't be boring.
4. No chudrama-tier content. Rightoid news sources are allowed, but anything that belongs in chudrama or could get the site deplatformed will be moved to chudrama.
5. @DarkDeity and
@Spiderman has the right to post whatever news they want in this hole
6. Be nice.
/h/mnn SETTINGS /h/mnn LOG /h/mnn MODS /h/mnn EXILEES /h/mnn FOLLOWERS /h/mnn BLOCKERS
Current software version: d7759c7
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
A few paragraphs down we learn that it wasn't actually Musk himself, but X Corp.
I'm not a !lawyers but this sounds totally normal.
Something something hate journ*lists enough
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.
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.
More options
Context
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.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
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.
More options
Context
More options
Context
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?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context