I mean… people buying it are fools and we don’t know if anyone has actually done so. The person selling it might be an idiot, but is it foolish to ask for money? Doesn’t hurt, especially if you need it desperately.
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?
Because it'll be used by questionable sources to farm accounts with history and of well known people to enroll in astroturfing, propaganda and straight up scams.
at work I use Edge and it has the page with the clickbait at start. If I click, then the news is in the msn page with no direct link to the source (or hidden in a way that’s not immediate)
Most times, at least in my country, the source is paywalled while the MSN version isn’t
I mean, I’ve certainly found myself reading an MSN article after the title caught my eye in a search, but if you’re sharing something you should take the time to review it and share a better link. In this case, the Forbes link does not appear to be paywalled, and archive.org should bypass that.
I’m happy people are sharing stuff to Lemmy, it’s been a little quiet.
I definitely value the Forbes article over the MSN but we might not be talking about it if we hadn’t seen this post. let’s not be too critical when people are participating positively.
Maybe my first comment was a little crass, but I think the criticism is more than valid. Really, it’s less of a criticism of the user and more of MSN republishing everything, as well as notice for people who haven’t yet spotted that trick they’re playing. But really, we should be encouraging users to share source articles or archive versions of the source article (as well as removing referral and AMP tags). I don’t think that is likely to make people share less, rather help them to learn how to share higher quality content, which in turn should be more popular.
I disagree that you don’t own it. Just because a business writes something into its terms and conditions, that doesn’t mean it is legitimate. The user behind the account has a stronger claim to the value of the account than the website - the user was the one who created the value, not the website. The website created the platform and then the marketplace, but the users are the ones who impart the value.
If the username is just a username and not being sold, then there isn’t really anything actionable, but because X are looking to sell it for significant value then it is actionable, and the user has the stronger claim.
This would be like a bank claiming all the money in your savings account because you haven’t made any deposits or withdrawals recently.
SWIM lives in such a country, and recently got hit by a “virtual fee” for account inactivity. Since it isn’t a “real fee”, it doesn’t increase debt, which would be illegal, but the bank will still happily apply it the moment SWIM were to ever put any money in the account.
SWIM looked around the web, and there are more people who got hit with that out of the blue… after they apparently introduced the “functionality” in 2018, but decided to “delay it” until 2023 because of COVID and stuff.
Calling it a “virtual fee” and just letting them sit there without doing anything, allows the entity to claim having more clients than they actually have, and look like it’s being owed more that it will ever get paid.
The user behind the account has a stronger claim to the value of the account than the website
Legally, they absolutely do not. Regardless of how shitty it is, a user has no rights whatsoever to anything on these platforms. Doesn’t matter if you’ve had an account on Twitter since day one, have a million followers, and because of that facilitated tons of ad revenue for the platform. Literally none of it belongs to you in any tangible or legal way.
These are chickens that people never believed would come home to roost. These social media companies have been around for so long and feel like such major players that people don’t think about things changing, and what that change means when they’ve built entire communities or businesses on these platforms. This is what happens when you build a life or career on a foundation you don’t control. The rug can be pulled out from under you at any time, and you have no recourse whatsoever.
You’re not even a tenant to these companies. You are not the customer. You’re the product they serve up.
This would be like a bank claiming all the money in your savings account because you haven’t made any deposits or withdrawals recently.
Many banks have features and services that require a minimum average daily balance and/or a certain number of transactions each month. Plenty of them have inactivity fees. And they’ll tell you that you signed papers agreeing to these things. Are those agreements valid? Doesn’t matter. Can you afford to sue a billion dollar banking and investment company to find out?
N.B.: I’m not endorsing these practices. Just describing the reality of them. Social media is a cancer. Capitalism is killing the planet. And all these problems lay therein.
The reality is that we often don’t know what rights we have until we attempt to take them to court and see if they carry weight. At some point companies move into the territory of fraud. The question is where that line is. This could well land on the wrong side of the line if a few judges decide it’s not reasonable.
No, the user absolutely does have rights to things on the platform. For example, reddit likes to talk big about “their data”, but in fact this data belongs to the users. Reddit claims an extensive licence to the data users provide them, but that data belongs to the user that created it.
It is akin to copyright. An artist has full ownership of the material they create, while their music label or whatever has rights to distribute it. So a media organisation can sell music rights to a dodgy politician for their election campaign, and that is legitimate, but it is still the artist’s work. In this example, the artist has already agreed to and been paid for the use of their work.
Like I say, just because a business puts it in their terms and conditions, that doesn’t mean it is legitimate. Just because it hasn’t been properly challenged, just because people haven’t yet thought of it as worthwhile to jump through the legal hoops, does not mean it is legitimate, let alone right.
Contracts require consideration. If I give you Intellectual Property rights to something I create, you must give me something in return. “Access to a website” is not really consideration - the website is free to access, regardless of whether I contribute, thus it cannot be taken as reasonable consideration in exchange for the value I provide. You should pay me if you profit from my work.
Websites and digital enterprises have got away without paying users for a long time. When it started, it didn’t seem like there was any significant value to any of it. Now, businesses like Facebook and Google have taken that “valueless” data and exploited it so much as to place themselves amongst the wealthiest organisations in the world - it is abundantly clear that user data does have value, even if that value requires work to be derived.
It also requires work to build a car, but you still have to pay for the nuts and bolts. Users should be paid for the nuts and bolts they provide, which digital businesses merely collect, then use to manufacture their product.
This really needs to be emphasised:
The user is not the product. The user is the supplier of raw materials. The supplier deserves to be fairly paid.
It does become a little different with usernames. In this case, the platform would normally claim ownership of usernames, which, per their terms can conditions, have no value (you’re not allowed to sell your account). However, when the business starts to place tangible value on the usernames that people have invested time in - beyond that of shady 3rd party websites that breach the terms of the website the username comes from - then things become fair and reasonable game for legal challenges.
The usernames would have no value if it weren’t for the users that held them. If Twitter/X reclaimed all the usernames and started selling them, people wouldn’t buy them for any significant amount, they would go to another platform and impart value there instead.
This is nothing but the latest example of sociopathic assholes trying to see how much shit they can get away with taking for free. Just because no one notices the theft, that does not mean no theft has been committed.
Like, platforms don’t actually own your data and usually explicitly state so; if for no reason other than not having liability for what you post.
If they did actually own the data (beyond having the very broad license to use it) they’d also have to curate 100% of it, otherwise they’d get sued to oblivion by copyright holders and whatnot.
Ownership of identifiers, that includes usernames, is regulated by Trademark laws.
If you keep using a moniker, like a username, to conduct trade under it, and/or have it registered as a trademark (which requires you to use it in trade or lose it), then you can legally claim it.
Otherwise, Twitter or any other platform, can do whatever they want with it.
Correct. What decides the rights, is the use. A registered but unused mark loses the rights, while a used but unregistered one keeps the rights (just becomes harder to prove).
And it needs to be used for trade. Like, someone’s personal nick, not used for trade, would have no rights. But the nick of someone using it to be an influencer, or a furry artist, would give them some rights.
That would be lovely! I actually still own some DOGE, albeit more for teh lulz than because of sound financial reasons. Though I’ve yet to encounter one single place where I could spend them for something I actually need.
I’d be slightly disappointed if the bill simply read “69.99” instead of “very such wow point wow” though.
Add comment