Elon Musk INTERVENES To Stop The Onion From BUYING Alex Jones' X Account

[@jpphilosopher]

@0:31 That’s false Neil, The Onion did NOT win the bid because it was not an actual auction. The judge overseeing the case instructed that Jone’s site and equipment must be sold off in an AUCTION but the SandyHook families and lawyers changed the rules of the auction from allowing bids, to only allowing participants to submit one offer that is private and not revealed to other “bidders”, and then they selected who they wanted to sell it to. Not based on the highest offer but based on who they arbitrarily choose, which was the onion despite the fact Rodger Stone offered more money than the onion. And to top it off, the onion doesn’t even have the money to buy infowars, the SH families promised to pay the onion the money to get infowars when they get the billion dollars from Alex. This is blatantly illegal and defied the judges orders. You guys not knowing this just shows how uninformed you are and how much of a joke you are.

[@monishbiswas1966]

"The judge overseeing the case instructed that Jone’s site and equipment must be sold off in an AUCTION but..." From what I understand the Trustee acted withing the bounds of the Courts instructions, which all bidders agreed to. The rules allowed some discretion of the trustee to amend the auction rules. "And to too it off, the onion doesn’t even have the money to buy infowars" - No they put up some money, less than the Jone-friendly bidders, which some debt forgivness from the Connetticut families makes the bit better in real terms for both the other creditors and for Alex Jones himself.

[@billbrobaggins221]

Thank you. The Scottish dude is wildly partisan. At least the American is attempting to land somewhere in the middle. I’ve seen a couple dozen videos of the two and yeah. The Scottish dude thinks he veils how partisan he is far better than he actually does. The left absolutely hates Alex Jones, obviously, and quite frankly the Supreme Court should have stepped in on his behalf because the judgement against him is patently insane and absurdly unconstitutional.

[@wallrads]

Thank you!!!! 🙏

[@ypw510]

Uh no. The judge gave the trustee the authority to conduct the auction in the best interests of the creditors and the debtor's estate. "13. The Trustee is authorized at the IP Assets Auction (if any) to (a) determine which Qualified Bid is the highest or otherwise best offer for the respective Assets (the “Successful Bid”) based on their perceived competitiveness in comparison to other Bids, provided that the Trustee may select more than one Qualified Bid to collectively serve as a Successful Bid if each such Qualified Bid contemplates the purchase of different Assets; (b) at any time prior to the determination by the Trustee of the Successful Bidder, reject any Bid that the Trustee determines, is (i) inadequate or insufficient, (ii) not in conformity with the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code or this Order, or (iii) contrary to the best interests of the Debtor’s estate, FSS and their creditors, and (c) prior to conclusion of an Auction (if any) impose such other terms and conditions upon bidders as the Trustee determines to be in the best interests of the Debtor’s estate, FSS and their creditors in this bankruptcy case."

[@H3LLS4NG3L]

That's called a silent auction... Those are bids. You did get one thing right though - it was not a fair, unbiased process.

[@voiceofexperience]

Who ever thought they owned their Twitter/X account 😂 You don't even own your credit card.

[@luddity]

Your credit card provides the means to borrow money based on a contract you have with the bank, which is based on your credit score. Your twitter account provides a way of identifying yourself in order to communicate with others, and is rated by the algorithm based on your account's activity. If someone hacks into your account to post with it, that is a form of identity theft, since the bad actor is representing themselves as you by using your account as if they were wearing your clothes and a convincing mask of your face to interact with your friends..

[@amandamiddleton6987]

Good point!

[@craigentrekin5883]

That's not the same thing as Elon asserting ownership of an account. It's clear in the language of the user agreement(notice it's not called a sales contract) that you are being granted access to the service, but you have no ownership of the account. Now, if Elon started posting on the account as if he were the account holder, he could be charged with fraud. However, by asserting ownership of the account, he's within his rights as the owner of the platform. All social media accounts are like this, which is why your account can be banned, suspended, and restricted without you being able to do anything about it.

[@notaspeck6104]

A lot of people are about to not own healthcare too :) have fun

[@craigentrekin5883]

@notaspeck6104 That's the dumbest, baseless, and unfactual comment so far today.

[@edgyebi1610]

I like Neil, even when I disagree with him I always find his perspective in good faith

[@jonschlottig9584]

Way better than Jessica or Bre.

[@lautaroaguilar9584]

Agree

[@jcarter-productions]

Yeah he's reasonable and respectful, which is what we should expect of anyone in either chair, it's a shame there so many toxic people in the comments that can't handle a differing opinion and bash him.

[@thinkfryrselfmom4086]

Well said.

[@user-td2lg1fl6h]

He’s one of the more pleasant type i can disagree with

[@ruthietreselan]

It is not elon it is a federal judge who stopped the illegal sale

[@RaisinBran-ir4iq]

Exactly. Additionally, the DOJ's bankruptcy division (yeah, that's really a thing) illegally seized Jones' studio without a court order or even a search warrant. This is a felony offense.

[@jayc1223]

No it isn’t. Stop making excuses for oligarchs. You think Elon is actually going to do anything for you? Remember how he treated Twitter employees? You’re next.

[@monishbiswas1966]

No - the sale is just going through the due process, it has neither been approved or stopped.

[@Miltersen]

@@jayc1223he already did something for us. He restored free speech.

[@TheVeritas2100]

Neil is WRONG ! **** The Onion did NOT win the bid because it was not an actual auction. ****

[@dudemcgyverson]

If you can be banned from the platform you dont own the account. Seems pretty simple to me.

[@sebastijanfino4076]

this case is tricky. The buyout was closed and the bidders to get Infowars was only open to cancel culture groups in a closed bid.... The max was like 200k USD but the name is worth over 800 million.. Im glad Musk came in and shut that corruption down.

[@CCherriosful]

Then if you don’t own the account & the company does and it’s not transferable then the company/platform is liable for whatever you posted on said platform legal or illegal. “What no you can’t!” Actually yes that is true since Elon’s Lawyers stupidly made the argument that everything related to the accounts on Twitter/X is property of X. Corp, so now Elon is liable for all the nonsense on it. Love law and love lawsuits.

[@timbeers2281]

I think in order to simplify it, Robbie's correct. You pretty much purchase (buy into) a "profile". The profile is only available based on the services X provides.

[@KellyAlbright-tg9kz]

yep just like you don't own your phone number. By definition, something you own must also be something you have ultimate control over.

[@GauntletKI]

Why are these guys speaking like Elon owns the account, it's TwitterX that owns the account.

[@EddieBryant]

Someone want to tell him who owns “TwitterX”? 🤣

[@GauntletKI]

@EddieBryant 🤣 not the same thing. Bill gates owns Microsoft, does he own my Microsoft online account? No, Microsoft does. Microsoft can delete my account if they wanted to, I don't own the account or the posts I make on their online forums.

[@EddieBryant]

@@GauntletKI Bill Gates has a 1% share in Microsoft and hasn't even been on the board in over 4 years. So I'm sure I'm dealing with someone who really knows what they're talking about. Tell me more...

[@GauntletKI]

@EddieBryant tell me more about elons ownership of my account

[@EddieBryant]

@@GauntletKI You're going to double down on your ignorance of not knowing Bill Gates didn't even own Microsoft... and now you're going to try to say X's Terms of Service don't say what they say. LOL -- you're head probably rings when it hits the pillow at night, too.

[@vagrant4154]

I like Niall. He seems much more level-headed than people that have sat in that chair before. In any case, this conversation is way too late. If the DOJ, CDC and FDA can have your account suspended or removed, then you don't own that account. This conversation is about 3-4 years too late

[@Repeal_22nd_Amendment]

If X/Twitter went away, so would Twitter accounts. Bummer if you paid for it.

[@stephenswedish1870]

People's accounts get banned and deleted by the owners. This isn't a hard concept.

[@markearlburman-ux8ws]

*

[@AstridWhettnall-m6t]

Please how ?

[@AstridWhettnall-m6t]

Am a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down 😭 of myself because of low finance but I still believe God 😔

[@markearlburman-ux8ws]

It's Julie Gilberts doing she's changed my life. A BROKER- like her is what you need.

[@markearlburman-ux8ws]

$356K monthly is something you should feel differently about....

[@burn6580]

When you purchase a game you don't own it, read the ULAs. Nothing strange here.

[@MultiYlin]

I am partially agree with Elon here with regard to Alex Jones under Alex Jones control provided his account is named after himself and it has been paid for with his credit cards. However, if it is paid by his company, it is really up to the judge to determine. the difficult bit for Elons argument to win is InfoWars' and Free Speech Systems: it is most certainly paid by the company, and it is part of the company's intangible asset I bet the Jones name case will defo end in front of SCOTUS ... even the Infowars might ... and the complications of the infowar cases might arise from its appraisals as it might have been what it is being sold: the problem is it might be within Elon's right not to provide the service to Infowar successive owners.

[@burn6580]

@@MultiYlin The same ULA's exist on Facebook and other social media companies.

[@Sneaky-Sneaky]

Niall is making less and less sense about account ownership !!

[@UbiquitousRomp]

The accounts are on X servers.... thats why. I't like me renting a house... it's not really my house, just a place I'm renting.

[@krishanpaul2]

or an email address. or a bank account. or x-box account. or loads of other things we think we own. i guess we will really own nothing and like it :)

[@RoyalProtectorate]

Doesn't matter if it's on X servers.Iff the ruling is ruled legal and Musk refuses to hand it over he could go to jail for this decision. But this is all meanless to discuss until the judge decides to make a decision on the matter. I will say his personal account might not qualify under the legal guidelines, if he wrote under the ownership of info wars "as owner." then his personal content will be spaired from the sale

[@UbiquitousRomp]

@@RoyalProtectorate What are you on about.... this isn't a crime investigation.... it's a civil matter.. He can't be forced to hand over anything.... Are you suggesting he hands over his servers.? What if X decides to delete the account.

[@UbiquitousRomp]

@@RoyalProtectorate Don't be daft.... it's a civil matter, not a police investigation. If X chooses to delete anyone account it's upto X. Nothing you or anyone can do about it.

[@mkhud50n]

This is one reason why websites are better than social media. They are an unnecessary middle man.

[@ChitMusik]

Sticky wicket! My initial reaction was similar to Niall’s. But having listened to the discussion, I think Robbie is probably technically correct.

[@death-by-ego]

Its funny what they are discussing is something long time gamers already know. You dont own digital downloads. You are essentially leasing a license. We have been accustomed to this idea for 15 years. I did say older gamers, because the youngens werent around for the advent of this so they might be under the impression that they do own it because all theyve known is the normalcy of digital downloads. So yea. Of course twitter x owns that name.

[@saint.hudson13]

They’re sitting on the news channel that they don’t own, aren’t they?

[@christopherbrown3393]

Think of it this way; you are renting a space. And with that rental you have the ability to personalize that space with your handle, content, pics, etc. Twitter still owns that space

[@ypw510]

Do they own the content, pics, trademarks used? Let's say that The Onion does end up buying the assets. I think there's a good chance of Judge Lopez approving the sale after the hearing. Would the Onion (as legal owner of the trademarks) have the right to a new X account using the Infowars and FSS names - separate from the previous ones? Because I'm sure that those accounts couldn't be used by another company using trademarked names.

[@mistyadams7973]

It’s like a Notebook. It’s my notebook, you can write in it, But it’s still my notebook

[@danielkim9453]

Elon Musk is becoming my favorite person in this world.

[@dariangregory6182]

Because You can't see the forest for the trees

[@deanlongfellow5154]

I am not a fan of oligarchs...

[@WileyHickok-sd6ov]

I'm going to agree with Robby on this one.

[@jonathanstein6056]

As I understand it, X owns the handle, but you own your content. It’s a license to operate on X. However, at the same time, X can’t use the handle to fraudulently impersonate the licensee. This is different from Prime Video, where the content is the issue.

[@ypw510]

There may be proprietary information in the account, so it's kind of tricky saying that the purchaser of the company can't own its own proprietary information stored on another company's servers.

[@kekwayblaze3176]

Well that's one more way to put more nails in the coffin of X by Elon Musk says he owns everything on X including your name.

[@donaldjohnson-e8f]

The platform owns your channel. You may own the copyright to videos or posts, but that won't do much good if the platform shuts down your channel. So....good luck. Nobody reads terms of service.

[@thiresalazar3194]

The content you post on X is own by them as well. It royale free.

[@journeymanelectrician]

Elon to purchase The Hill next

[@digitalaether]

I really like the Robbie/Nial dynamic. Its great to see legitimate disagreements, well presented on both sides, emotions kept in check, and logic used on both ends. I frequently disagree with Nial, but compared to Nomiki, Jessica, and even Bri, he is a breath of fresh air.

[@PaineStakingTruth]

It’s simple to me. X can allow or disallow you to use X to message. That’s it.

[@chrzoc]

Obviously you don’t own your online created accounts, this is not anything new. If you did, then you would never have bans, lockouts, retroactive TOS updates, et al. You own the content, because it’s your own IP, but even that content is subject to the platform. If you truly want to “own” your online content: Invest and construct an OC48 backbone and form an agreement with your regional SONET infrastructure provider. Then build a rack on your premises, run your own server, Apache web services, etc al. Run your website and big data backend on your own private server. Then maybe you can truly say you “own” your online presence. Short of that, we’re all pretty much renters.

[@luddity]

Is "identity theft" a thing? What if someone obtains all your passwords and uses them to access all of your accounts? Can a bank or platform sell someone the rights to takeover your accounts and impersonate you in whatever interactions or transactions they like? No. Because the account was created by you and can be deleted by you and is based on a contract between you and the bank or platform that hosts your account.

[@chrzoc]

@@luddity well first, comparing a bank account to an online social media platform is a false equivalency. One is constrained by federal financial laws and regulations, FDIC indemnified, et al… Also, you’re not subject to any “contract” with a free online service, you’re subject to a EULA/TOS, which if you actually read the boilerplate, you abdicate essentially any “rights” you may think you have when you click “agree”. However nonetheless, while I align with the essence of your position. Reality dictates that it’s simply not the case.

[@DannyBowen25]

@@luddity Beyond @chrzoc s very good point. No one is impersonating anyone here, the only people trying to impersonate Alex Jones are the sandy hook families. Elon is PREVENTING that from happening, because its not their decision to use his platform that way.

[@lautaroaguilar9584]

I agree with Robby.

[@wallrads]

They did not win the bid legally. It was an unlawful process in which it was offered.

[@ypw510]

The trustee disagrees and he'll have his chance to explain during the hearings.

[@kekwayblaze3176]

WHO told you that? Oh right. It was Alex Jones whom only brain dead conspiracy theorists consider to be a truth teller.

[@nox5555]

@@ypw510 the whole process was laughable. you can like AJ or not, but the whole trial and the verdict were clearly political.

[@ypw510]

@@nox5555 I thought it was hilarious when his own attorney mistakenly released the contents (emails and texts) of Jones's cell phone, which contained evidence that he'd been lying as well as deliberately withholding them from discovery.

[@Cryptocracy_Now]

It would be akin to you renting your house to someone, and then that person loses a completely unrelated legal battle, and the court orders YOUR property to be sold in order to satisfy your renters debt to someone else. What???

[@doogyob]

It's an interesting issue. Invite an IP lawyer onto the show to discuss it.

[@markjohnston9321]

If he owns the account, is he liable for any harm caused by it?

[@eddienoragong402]

He is not, that is currently FCC policy. Good point, however

[@Jon-nt8sx]

No

[@jeffreymontoya9933]

Grow a spine and stop bowing down to Elon for christs sake. 🙄

[@ChristopherOrth]

When you purchased a VHS, DVD or other physical media back in the day, you also did not "own" the movie/music on it. You owned the plastic it was delivered on, and the rights to view that artistic work. The tape/CD was just a big dongle. People were under the impression that they had some level of actual ownership over that media because the companies couldn't take it away without breaking into your house, which is a crime. But with streaming, it's essentially the same thing. You own a license to watch/listen to that artistic work, but it's now time limited, either by the terms of the short term rental agreement, or for the amount of time you subscribe to said service. So any arguments about how things are different now are not functional or accurate.

[@ypw510]

It's a bit more complicated because there's actual information that theoretically belongs to the company stored on a social media company's servers. Possibly important business data such as user statistics, etc. For instance, I worked at a company where our company's email was through GMail. I'm pretty sure all that data belonged to our company and not Google. If our company was sold, all those company accounts would belong to the successor company.

[@Trooper599]

lol people think they own something (their X profiles) simply because they paid for it. I paid for every game I have on Steam, Ubisoft Connect, GOG, etc... Should any of those platforms decide to remove support for the game, or remove the game all together rendering me unable to use something I purchased, I would have no legal recourse, since I pay for the license to use the game, and not the game itself. It's the same with social media profiles. People are just uninformed.

[@beatrixkills1]

If Nialls idea here of ownership came to fruition, people would just make hundreds of accounts and then sell them to parties that wanted the name. It would basically be a domain selling site.

[@kelseywalker2342]

Seems pretty simple u pay for Netflix account you don’t own the squid games , you pay for your Spotify account you don’t own the music. You are paying for access to the a site it is never “yours” if you pay for your own domain name than yes you own it otherwise no.

[@debarunacharya7497]

Domains are also tricky , you don’t explicitly own it, its owned by TLD , if TLD feels to take it away from you , they can. I had few of my domains taken away as it resembled some government stuff.

[@kelseywalker2342]

@ I suppose that’s true enough it’s not much different

[@staticsock]

Does Nial think seizing Venmo accounts in Canada to stop trucker protests was also an infringement because they OWN their Venmo handle?

[@Patricia_l]

I'm 51yrs old. $75,000 biweekly and I'm retired, this video have inspired me greatly in many ways that I remember my past of how I struggled with many things in life to be where I am today!!!!❤️

[@baluraju7387]

That's lovely 🌹if I may ask, How did you come up with so much biweekly?

[@Patricia_l]

It's Roberta Ann Caudill doing she changed my life. A BROKER- like her is what you need.

[@Patricia_l]

She's a licensed broker here in the states

[@Wright114]

Wow😱 I know her too Roberta Ann Caudill is a remarkable individual who has brought immense positivity and inspiration into my life. Her unwavering wisdom have been invaluable assets, enriching my journey in countless ways.

[@Philip474]

I googled about her and yes, she's won my heart. She just gained herself a new client

[@GattacaKain]

If we owned our social media accounts, then we would not need to follow the platform's Terms of Service. We agree to a term of service as a condition for using someone else's property. They tell us, "We will provide you with this service if you follow these terms".

[@BradLeroy]

Elon and Alex are American heroes!

[@christopherdame9073]

I learned more about government corruption from Alex Jones than any other source for the last 20 years. He is a true patriot. At times well over the top. But so many of the things he said turned out to be true. And he was the only person saying it at that time..

[@H3LLS4NG3L]

This whole argument about IP and property rights really can be boiled down to licensing. In software, consumers license the use of products, they don't own them. This line of reasoning can easily be placed onto social media accounts. We license the use of the account, and must agree to the terms of that license, but ultimately, the product and the account are both property of the corporation.

[@BSGDiscerp]

Bro, if Elon shut down Twitter tomorrow you couldn't sue Elon over your account being gone. He owns it.

[@nomad_333_]

Good discussion

[@martinhumble]

I love the Onion 🇸🇪

[@TinaA-ob4rr]

Elon ROCKS!

[@shawn20768]

If Elon shut down "X" the most he would owe you would be the remaining days of your monthly subscription

[@ronald3836]

Do you have the right to transfer your (Twitter) name to someone else? Certainly your real name is not a property that you can "own" and "sell".

[@l-dixon4231]

I'm more interested in WHY Elon is stepping in on this. It's surely not just a matter of principle. With the talk about buying MSNBC, I'm wondering if Elon wants to make a competitive offer...

[@danceswith7wolves]

It's not okay for Elon to buy the account but its okay for the Onion to do so 🤔

[@martinhumble]

Most of us see The Onion as something positive and a psychopath at something bad

[@MrSoundofmusic]

@@martinhumble I used to think the Onion was quite comical...but that was 20 years ago...now I see them as useless and no longer funny...just like SNL.

[@danceswith7wolves]

@@martinhumble "if you disagree with anything you are a xenophobe" ~ Sincerely, not a psycho person

[@PhilipMoore-m4w]

The point is that Elon doesn't have to buy the account because he already owns it.

[@hrs2044]

I think the issue is the fact that Elon is saying he owns all accounts on twitter, including yours. You didnt watch the video, did you. 😂

[@sbffsbrarbrr]

I imagine Elon knows what he is talking about when it comes to the ins and outs of his own company.

[@teebone2157]

Nope, that's out of his place.They shouldn't even recognize any challenge.He puts for if so , any americans should be able to challenge any legal ruling

[@luddity]

All of your social media accounts are extensions of your identity, just like your bank account, and therefore potentially subject to identity theft by bad actors. Elon owns the server, but not the personal content people put on it. We pay him rent for the use of the server for communication, either by viewing ads and allowing him to use our content to make money with, or by paying a Subscription fee, or both. Just like bank account holders don't own the bank itself, just the funds they have deposited there. We own our tweets or whatever kind of posts we make. The major difference being that tweets can be deleted by us or the platform without depleting our wealth, and our identity extension (account) remains intact. The platform, or bank deleting our accounts is a form of theft, even if it's written into the fine print of the TOS, since nobody reads those. Lawyers may disagree, but the public sense of right and wrong also matters. But the bank absolutely cannot sell your checking account to someone else, nor can the social media platform, as its value depends on it being a genuine creation by and representation of your identity.

[@The_Walking_Dude]

A similar practice occurs with digital downloads of games purchased through platforms such as the PlayStation Store, Steam, and Xbox. Developers have, in some cases, removed titles from users' personal libraries for various reasons. Additionally, server shutdowns for certain games are common, leading to the loss of potentially hundreds of hours of gameplay and associated financial investments. This phenomenon is not new, and Nile should carefully examine potential biases in their perspective. I'm not saying I like it. The practice is unfair.

[@saint.hudson13]

You have the right to your address, but if you’re renting you still don’t own your home! 🧠 put on your thinking cap.

[@kylorobb]

Elon should just give it to them, but then change their passwords. 😂😂

[@RodGustavson]

Of course Robby is fine with Musk seizing his handle. He’s fine with whatever Musk says. I saw this coming even before I read the title.

[@David-b5d2m]

We are so lucky to have ELON in our corner ,, 🇺🇲💯

[@deanlongfellow5154]

Proverbs 17:4 (NKJV) A wicked doer gives heed to false lips; a liar listens eagerly to a spiteful tongue.

[@stevengoldstein114]

Too late Elon, the auction is over and the process was not unlawful

[@quantumbot2323]

X owns it. Think about the liability for X to have someone other than Alex Jones post from the verified Alex Jones account. Those high profile accounts are verified, meaning the people posting are who they say they are. X definitely owns the handle, and it's not transferrable.

[@DL-hu9yw]

Niall 1, Robby 0

[@johnbamforth2974]

I can see both sides on this one. It is true that if one has an account with a company they can close that account, lock u out, etc. but this is a unique situation in that a corporate entity is being sold and therefore the accounts of that entity are being transferred to the new owner. I wonder if the terms of the sale specifically mentioned the X accounts and their names being part of the sale. That seems to me what would determine it.

[@rkinczel]

This is backwards, musk isn't taking the account, he's blocking someone else from taking the account. It's like I buy my brother a car, it's in my name but he drives it exclusively. If he gets into a lot of debt and they try to seize the car to pay back his debt and I say: 'thats my car not his'. I block them from taking the car but then I continue to let him drive it. U wouldn't be seizing his car I would be protecting his use of the car..

[@toddherman2020]

What would happen if the Onion won the case and took over AJ Info wars and AJ cancelled his account? Without AJ providing his content any longer... Or is that the objective of the Onion? Or would AJ simply accept a salary for providing his opinions? P.S. I am not a lawyer.

[@ypw510]

I would think they have the right to the name and would just request that a new account be used with the names. They may only be concerned with whether or not the right to use their service can be bought or sold.

[@DonaldMilligan-d7s]

The cheating onions are done God has won

[@Artisan_GenZ]

When you buy a drink at a restaurant, you’re technically paying for the drink, not the cup. Similarly, platforms are like the cup, and your data is the juice. What’s funny is that the platforms own both😂

[@H3LLS4NG3L]

Milkshake scene from There Will Be Blood - our devices are the cup, and the corporations are Daniel Day Lewis 😂

[@bradchun21]

Good debate

[@brucetulloch9092]

If X is a "public town square" then the "brand" the account holders handle represents is their identity and IP in the square. Otherwise it's not a town square. It's Elon's plaything. I'd say it's the latter and treat X accordingly.

[@ceeemm1901]

Wow! nobody thought about the rules or consequences beforehand.....amazing.

[@williamprice1497]

Free Speech Robbie don’t talk about Israel you’ll get fired!

[@PS-qn4oz]

To Niall's point around @1:55...arguing that you have the right to the use of your name seems to support Elon's position. How can someone just step in and take over your name? If I do something and the court decides I'm a goner, can they for example just turn my email account over to whoever beat me in court?

[@ypw510]

But the right to a name can be sold and is in fact part of many business transactions. I remember the Scharffenberger wine company. The founder sold off the company and the successors had a right to use the name. But then the founder decided to go into the chocolate business and ran into the problem that he effectively sold off the right to use his name on a food or beverage product. So he named his new company "Scharffen Berger". I think a better known one would be the Famous Amos cookie company. Wally Amos sold off the company and when he got back in the cookie business he had to call any new company something else that didn't include "Amos".

[@Amoney1]

Same with audible. If you ever stop paying their monthly fee, you can't read the books that you've purchased

[@siq_hunt]

Any account or subscription is completely at the discretion of the owner of the platform you have said account or subscription with. It would be in the T&C's. We don't own our names. There are literally thousands of people with the same name around the world. They don't own it.

[@LastCallHall]

We need an internet bill of rights. Loss of the first sale doctrine via EULAs has killed ownership of digital goods.

[@0neMadGypsy]

You can use any name you want that has not been taken. The name on the site is really nothing but an ID. If the name of Alex Jones X account was "big conspiracy" - what part of that is he expected to own? Y'all are to stuck on the fact that he chose his/name brand to be his ID on the site, and not considering that the ID is entirely arbitrary.

[@davidwright3534]

A social media account is not ownership-at best, it's a lease agreement. What's being argued here is akin to the idea that you could etch your name on a rental car and rent it indefinitely.

[@davejorgenson2]

"It's a shame both sides can't lose" 🙄. This freedom of speech thing really riles up the leftists huh.

[@dabronx340]

You missed the part where the auction was rigged. That’s why the judge halted it.

[@donsaunders5348]

I think that what Elon Musk is arguing in the broader sense is that the X terms of service establish that ownership changes of an account are prohibited and would result in termination of that account.......I think he is also implying that without Alex Jones, there will not be any account identifying itself as "Infowars"......As far as the court system being able to assign the name "Alex Jones" to a different person or entity, it will make a great court case....

[@ypw510]

It's kind of tough when a business entity is tied to using a name enough to trademark it and provide that it's the property of the company. If The Onion manages to buy FSS and the Infowars trademarks and X comes back and says you're not welcome here, we know that they don't truly believe in free speech or want to provide an outlet for everyone.

[@utubemedia101]

Your social media handle is no different than a street address. If you rent a house or business you can't sell the street address. It is the property of the building owner.

[@ronwarsdher1236]

The monetization of thought when the actual cost of distribution is virtually free. We are truly in new territory ! A: Uh here -- Let me purchase your soul. B: How much is it worth? C: You don't own it. Philosophy matters. Thank you for noticing this Somewhat Obscure but Truly Important issue.

[@snakehandler1487]

".. and don't call me Shirley" .. Wake up Robby !

[@707Radio]

Elon musk being more rich than buffet and gates... And Trump.... Dam!!!! Alex Jones must be feeling like someone actually cares about him that's worth something. SAVE INFOWARS AND ALEX JONES.

[@xfreedmen7020]

That is like saying that Hotmail and gmail can seize your emails and do what they want to do with them

[@danceswith7wolves]

Or the Onion

[@disruptancepodcast]

Yes, they can. The U.A. allows for this.

[@benjamindover4337]

They already do that. Gmail has always paid it's bills by reading your email and selling that information to the highest bidder.

[@PaineStakingTruth]

Emails are different from messages.

[@squ34ky]

GMail shows targeted ads based on the content of your emails. They are already doing what they want with them with your explicit permission.

[@dourian]

To build on what was asked about Robbie's name, what is you have a name like John Smith, which is supposedly common, does that mean that anyone with the same name has no rights to the name?

[@angelabriggs6859]

Say that i wrote a song on Google Docs and saved it on Google Drive. Would Google then own my song?

[@albaniaball897]

That's your IP. So, no. Google wouldn't own it unless when you make a google account they specifically say they own the content you put on there.

[@angelabriggs6859]

@@albaniaball897but wouldn’t the content I generate be my IP as well?

[@albaniaball897]

@@angelabriggs6859 Yes. But the account itself doesn't belong to you. But again that's dependent on the user agreement and what it says.

[@JB-lovin]

Robby runs to whatever extreme interpretation of ownership rights that suits him for the occasion.

[@burtonmatterhorn]

What was Elon’s grievance against twitter again? This is same.

[@bobok1541]

Read the terms of use Niall, poor contribution, poor grasp of the issues

[@OneLine122]

Whatever right Jones had is transferred to the new owner, that includes the access to that account. Musk owns the account of course, so he could delete it. I just don't think he can give it back to Jones. If you went bankrupt and had a car, they might ask you for the key. Now some friend might claim the car is owned by them and Jones is only using it with their permission, in which case the car would go back to that friend. I just don't think they could then turn back and give the key back to Jones, because they it would prove it actually belong to him. Or maybe not, but that type of scam is not new, I am sure there are procedures to solve this.

[@ArcherNews50-m4h]

Such great conversations coming from these two! Please keep this format and these hosts!

[@BoRaiChoWins]

Even after buying a game you don’t actually own the game people have had access to games they own denied. It’s the same as X

[@luddity]

That is a breach of contract, and therefore, illegal.

[@tanakaba]

If we now own our accounts, does every company that bans users owe recompense for stealing it? I've seen some mighty large ban hammers across multiple sites and MMOs over the years.

[@chineseredneck1211]

Do people own the mail box at the post office?

[@divinelovepeace]

Did this dude just say, "It FEELS a bit different to me" when he had issues with RFK saying something "felt" plandemic like? He didn't just say that, did he?

[@markh2355]

The incoming whitehouse should allocate seating at press briefings based on viewing/reader numbers.

[@TravelingCircus]

this was a great discussion, and really nice to see... the world is already healing

[@DJRavek]

You don't own anything "digital", it's not physical property

[@delirium166]

IP isn't physical, Trademarks aren't physical, digital books aren't physical.. this is a very muddy area of law.

[@basicivmatt917]

But you're OK with the government taking ownership of an account on X?