Elon Musk and company take @x handle from its original user. He got zero dollars for it.
Elon Musk and company take @x handle from its original user. He got zero dollars for it.
Here's how it went down.
You're viewing a single thread.
-
Why is this news? It is their platform. You have your handle at their discretion. Getting paid for it? Hahahaha. Riiiight. This isn't some domain that is actually owned. You own literally nothing on social media platforms. Whoever theorized he'd be paid is moronic and a perfect example of a twit.
-
Doesn't it come across as unethical and wrong like an abuse of power to you?
-
Sure it's wrong, but the real point is no one is surprised Musk did something to make someone feel like shit. It's his goal
The better move is to let the platform slip away into irrelevancy.
-
-
Its their platform and their reputation. If some users don't like what "Musk" do, then they have right to make and read news about it, regardless of de jure rights, EULA and whatnot.
PS: And yes, the owner's account was renamed in a rather nonchalant "fuck you" way. I would never learn about this, without these news.
-
I'm not insinuating it wouldn't be bad press for them. It's simply the reality of being on someone else's platform. You exist on their service at their pleasure. They can shut everything down tomorrow and you are owed nothing, but that does not free them of criticism.
-
Except copyright and pattents if applicable, you cant claim a capital letter, but you can your branding (style and context behind the letter).
-
-
-
If you are thinking of building a brand on twitter (or X) or have an existing brand, it is important to know that twitter (or X) are willing just take your name away from you if they feel like it without recourse.
Of course it is always technically possible to take a user name. But most sites make it clear that they wont risk damaging brands by protecting against fake clones and allowing companies to keep their user names. That is why it is news.
-
I mean you agree to that when you sign up on their service so you should know better than to build your entire identity on something you dont own. Just like you wouldnt have Lemmy be your one point of a brand on someone elses instance because you dont know if it will shut down tomorrow
-
Yes, I agree. I don't see how that makes the information any less important. If Lemmy or Twitter was going to shutdown tomorrow I would want to hear about it.
-
-
Sounds like a you problem if you're relying on a social media service to help you build a brand. If you pay, you have legal recourse. If you're there for free advertising, sucks to base your brand on hopes and dreams.
-
Yes, it is your problem. That is why it should be news. So you can figure out if it is worth the risk of putting your brand on twitter.
-
-
-
It's showing a rather funny lack of tact, soft skills and PR skills. Google can take your Gmail account too, but it's rather unheard of (say Google launches a product name "GreatDay" - it's absolutely unheard of for Google to just grab the "GreatDay" handle from Gmail - in fact such a move would sent terror chills up many marketing departments around the world honestly).
I'm not going to blame you for not understanding just how ridiculous this is, but this sends all the wrong messages - i.e. could I pay Elon to grab someone else's Twitter handle because I can make a better business claim for it? That sure is what this seems to imply
-
It's news because as the owners of information channels can do as they please, it's shitty when they don't even pretend to be neutral. Which is why they usually do. Not a hard thing to follow and no, thinking that a payment would be issued isn't a sign of a "twit," it's just one way they could have not seemed like dicks who do as they please.
-