I’m very confused that this is happening now. I thought it happened a long time ago (them being found liable I mean). It’s crazy to me that it’s taken this long for such a pitiful punishment. It is good though that people are being reminded once again how shitty they are. Maybe we can impact their bottom line somehow (doubtful)
This is about Chiquita’s activities in the late 1990s and early 2000s, not about the 1928 coup in Honduras which was funded by Chiquita, then called United Fruit Company.
You know how every once in a while there’s an article going “man, check out all this illegal fucked up shit the CIA was doing 20 years ago, sure is great they stopped and don’t do anything illegal and fucked up anymore”, and the date they stopped doing the illegal shit is always “20 years ago”, regardless of when the article is published?
Oh an anonymous little bird told them that all the people disgusted with Biden are actual trump supporters in disguise! I’m sure that’s true and not complete fabrication like the average nyt anonymous source…
Doubtful. The Dreamcast mostly failed due to lack of faith in the product from SEGA. They stopped development on them only like a year after they came out, IIRC, despite having a super solid and amazing catalogue already.
Microsoft will probably kill the Xbox, but not because they just don’t think it will go anywhere. More because they will make changes trying to sell more of them, until nobody wants them because they suck.
This isn’t really what happened with the dreamcast. It didn’t sell well, and more importantly, it didn’t sell well enough to cover the cost of making new dreamcasts. Sega well supported the system, but could not afford to stay in the hardware business.
So you just trust them to be honest and truthful, and to not make stuff up in order to promote their narrative? I have this very nice bridge you will be interested in, great value only one previous owner.
Is it better to periodically clear unused handles and have them snatched up by bots or should they sell them? To me selling them gives people a chance to get the handle they want and stops bots from grabbing up popular handles.
If I want the handle fizz I’ll pay about $10 if someone wants to pay more then they want it more than me. I’d rather be able to bid on it than have it grabbed by a bot.
You think those are mutually exclusive? What’s to stop a bot/bad actor with some money from buying “unused” handles?
I guess this isn’t the worst idea he’s had for twitter but it seems like a short term money grab while the ship is sinking. By his own valuation twitter is worth half what it was a year ago and still not profitable, selling usernames won’t change that
But if you were the legitimate person behind a username, why should it be taken from you just because you’ve been idly waiting for any value to be realised and not actively using it? In particular, they’re taking it with no compensation, for the purpose of keeping all of the new value for themselves.
It would be far more reasonable if they took away everyone’s accounts and sold them all. That would be equal and fair.
But equal and fair and reasonable isn’t the goal of X and Musk. The goal is to stir as much shit as possible before the business inevitably closes due to excessive debt, as a direct result of the initial leveraged buyout. Then, new platforms can be put in its place, and the more dodgy stuff X gets away with the more these new platforms can also.
They’re not giving it to other users, they’re selling it. If usernames are going to be sold then it is only right that the original user be paid a fair share.
But that’s the thing, a bot can’t scoop it up without going through the user, without acquiring it from them in some way. Twitter are bypassing the user entirely and taking it from them. Also, a bot is illegitimate, however in selling usernames itself Twitter is effectively legitimising the practice.
Either usernames have no value, in which case Twitter can do with them as they please, or the usernames have value and that value rightfully belongs to the user that holds it.
Most sites that use a unique username free up old ones periodically so I don’t think that’s the issue here. Usernames have value and that’s why they should be freed and auctioned to people that want them. On a proprietary website like Twitter nothing belongs to the user.
But the rules on almost all sites is that they don’t have value - the terms and conditions forbid you from trading usernames.
Like I say, they can’t have it both ways. Either they have no value and trading is against the terms, or they do have value and can be traded, in which case the website has a duty towards the user as the “bank” where the valuable item is kept. Furthermore, the higher the price Twitter are looking to sell usernames for, the more reasonable the claim against them becomes. $50,000 is a significant amount, one which a claim could reasonably be made for.
On a proprietary website like Twitter nothing belongs to the user.
Not true. If I make a post on Twitter, that post is my intellectual property. Twitter might claim extensive rights to user posts, as they are on their website and their terms and conditions claim such rights, but the user is still the owner.
Whether or not Twitter can even hold onto all of the rights their terms claim is also tenuous, as there is an argument that consideration (ie payment) should be given in return for those rights. Using the website is not really consideration, as the website is free to use regardless of whether you post content to it.
They can have it both ways. Usernames can have value and Twitter can sell them and users can not sell their own accounts.
I looked into who owns the tweets and Twitter said users own their tweet but a us judge ruled that Twitter owns the tweets. I don’t think it’s reasonable to think you own a Twitter username and I think its reasonable for Twitter to delete your inactive account and release the username and sell it if they want. I don’t think you would win a legal battle and Twitter can update their policy to do whatever they need to do to remove your ownership if you had any.
Link? If it wasn’t the US Supreme Court, then the ruling is significantly limited. And even if it was, that only applies to the US. Beyond that, we’d be getting into the nitty gritty of copyright law in specific jurisdictions - so far we’ve been talking about overall principles of copyright and intellectual property.
Twitter’s current terms seem very clear on the matter:
You retain ownership and rights to any of your Content you post or share, and you provide us with a broad, royalty-free license to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.
You own the content, Twitter has a licence. They also provide no definition for “Content”, so it can easily be argued that the username is content, as it is provided by the user.
Twitter can update their policy as much as they like, but it would ultimately be decided in the courts. Until then nothing is certain, but David doesn’t always lose to Goliath, and courts don’t like it when a big player is clearly taking advantage of the little guy. $50,000 value would definitely be considered.
More likely though there probably will be no legal battle. Twitter is circling the drain, by the time anything is heard in court they’ll be gone. However that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to do things like this with no objections.
If I want the handle fizz I’ll pay about $10 if someone wants to pay more then they want it more than me.
No, if someone is willing to pay more than you they may want it less but also value their money less because they have a lot of it, or they may think they can use it to make more money than you are willing to pay for it. capital=power, not desire
Poor people don’t really want things - you need a certain level of cash flow to qualify as a proper person with dreams and feelings, haven’t you heard?
msn.com
Top