On Monday, X filed an objection in The Onion’s bid to buy InfoWars out of bankruptcy. In the objection, Elon Musk’s lawyers argued that X has “superior ownership” of all accounts on X, that it objects to the inclusion of InfoWars and related Twitter accounts in the bankruptcy auction, and that the court should therefore prevent the transfer of them to The Onion.

The legal basis that X asserts in the filing is not terribly interesting. But what is interesting is that X has decided to involve itself at all, and it highlights that you do not own your followers or your account or anything at all on corporate social media, and it also highlights the fact that Elon Musk’s X is primarily a political project he is using to boost, or stifle, specific viewpoints and help his friends. In the filing, X’s lawyers essentially say—like many other software companies, and, increasingly, device manufacturers as well—that the company’s terms of service grant X’s users a “license” to use the platform but that, ultimately, X owns all accounts on the social network and can do anything that it wants with them.

“Few bankruptcy courts have addressed the issue of ownership of social media accounts, and those courts that have were focused on whether an individual or the individual’s employer owned an account used for business purposes—not whether the social media company had a superior right of ownership over either the individual or the corporation,” Musk’s lawyers write.

The case Musk’s lawyers are referencing here is Vital Pharm’s bankruptcy case, in which a supplement company filed for bankruptcy and the court decided that the Twitter and Instagram accounts @BangEnergyCEO, which were primarily used by its CEO Jack Owoc to promote the brand, were owned by the company, not Owoc. The court determined that the accounts were therefore part of the bankruptcy and could not be kept by Owoc.

Except in exceedingly rare circumstances like the Vital Pharm case, the transfer of social media accounts in bankruptcy from one company to another has been routine. When VICE was sold out of bankruptcy, its new owners, Fortress Investment Group, got all of VICE’s social media accounts and YouTube pages. X, Google, Meta, etc did not object to this transfer because this sort of thing happens constantly and is not controversial. (It should be noted that social media companies regularly do try to prevent the sale of social media accounts on the black market. But they do not usually attempt to block the sale of them as part of the sale of companies or in bankruptcy.)

But in this InfoWars case, X has decided to inject itself into the bankruptcy proceedings. Jones has signaled that Musk has done this in order to help him, and his tweet about it has gone incredibly viral. On a stream of his show after the filing, Jones called this “a major breaking Monday evening news alert that deals with the First Amendment and the people’s fight to reclaim our country from the clutches of the globalists.”

"Elon Musk X Corp entered the case with a lawsuit within it to defend the right of X to not have private handles of people like Alex Jones stripped away. It violates the 13th Amendment against slavery, there are many issues. Today they filed a major brief in the case,” Jones said. “Elon Musk’s X comes to Alex Jones’ defense against democrat attempts to steal Jones’ X identity.”

Musk famously unbanned Jones, then appeared on the same Twitter Spaces broadcast with him. Musk has also tweeted occasionally that he believes The Onion is not funny. Jones, meanwhile, has been ranting and raving about some sort of conspiracy that he believes led a judge via the Deep State to sell InfoWars to The Onion at auction.

X calls itself “the sole owner” of X accounts, and states that it “does not consent” to the sale of the InfoWars accounts, as doing so would “undermine X Corp.’s rightful ownership of the property it licenses to Free Speech Systems [InfoWars], Jones, or any other account holder on the X platform.” Again, X accounts are transferred in bankruptcy all the time with no drama and with no objection from X.

“Looming over the framework [in the Vital Pharm case] was the undeniable reality that social media companies, like X Corp., are the only parties that have truly exclusive control over users’ accounts,” the lawyers write. “X CORP. OWNS THE X ACCOUNTS.”

That a corporate social media company says it owns the social media accounts on its service is probably not surprising. Meta, Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, and ByteDance have run up astronomical valuations by more or getting people to fill their platforms with content for free, and have created and destroyed countless businesses, business models, and industries with their constantly-shifting algorithms and monetization strategies. But to see this fact outlined in such stark terms in a court document makes clear that, for human beings to seize any sort of control over their online lives, we must move toward decentralized, portable forms of social media and must move back toward creating and owning our own platforms and websites.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      26 days ago

      I’m not sure why everyone is shocked. This has been the case since the beginning of the public Internet. It’s their servers, their infrastructure, and everyone should have been completely aware that we are giving them content for free. I was never under any other impression. That’s why I don’t post anything on social media I truly care about.

    • bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      26 days ago

      But you own the goodwill and trademarks associated with what’s on the left of it.

      Similarly, when people sell a business they sell the clients. It stands to reason that the followers can be like clients and should be transferred in the same way as in normal business sales.

      • AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        26 days ago

        X can’t reuse the inforwars account due to the trademark, but they are also not required to transfer ownership or continue providing access to that account.

        • bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          26 days ago

          True, but I think it’s pretty clear what they’re trying to actually do; to keep control of the account and use it.

  • penquin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    26 days ago

    A country where money gives you power over even the justice system, is just a joke of country and will eventually collapse on itself.

    • r00ty@kbin.life
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      26 days ago

      Now see, I don’t like it but the simplest thing would be for musk to ban the account right now.

      He’s not circumventing anything then. Ownership of the account was transferred, that twitter, a private entity chose to ban it is their business.

      It’s not worth arguing about. The website and ip is the juicy thing, being able to make satirical info wars programming and products is where it is at. Maybe, maybe there would be a case if musk allowed Jones to make a new account with the same name or otherwise handed it to him.

      • penquin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        26 days ago

        Would be hilarious if the onion just told Musk to shove that account up his ass and take it to bluesky

  • Pasta Dental@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    26 days ago

    I mean… Yeah they can always not give out the accounts, but they will still need to disable them if they don’t want to infringe the Infowars trademark that would belong to The Onion

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    26 days ago

    Ok. The accounts can be withheld, suspended or whatever.

    The Onion is therefore entitled to due compensation from X Corp., as this was considered to be included in the bid. X can have that NFT for just 47 billion dollars, what a deal! /s

    People like Elon Musk were what the EU’s Digital Markets Act was made for.

    • r00ty@kbin.life
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      26 days ago

      No. If valve cancel your steam account, you lose your games and they owe you a big fat zero.

      Same goes for all accounts with assets attached.

      Sad to say, but in this case it is musk’s platform and his rules.

      If he wants to go home and take his ball too. Tough luck.

      Doesn’t seem right, but it is legal and already happened on multiple platforms multiple times.

      • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        26 days ago

        Perhaps, but it all depends on the judge’s decision whether X corp’s argument is completely bullshit or not.

        For your Valve example, in the Subscriber Agreement you can terminate the agreement, or Valve can terminate it for a violation of the Agreement rules, with no refunds. For a termination without a valid reason, “no refunds” does not necessarily apply. I’m not saying it would be hard for Valve to come up with a bullshit reason to cancel anyone’s account on a whim or to change the terms so that they get broken easily, but it’s not automatic and courts can assign value to a specific license you have access to, based on the jurisdiction, in particular in places like Quebec, Australia, and the EU.

        9C. Termination by Valve

        Valve may restrict or cancel your Account or any particular Subscription(s) at any time in the event that (a) Valve ceases providing such Subscriptions to similarly situated Subscribers generally, or (b) you breach any terms of this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use). In the event that your Account or a particular Subscription is restricted or terminated or cancelled by Valve for a violation of this Agreement or improper or illegal activity, no refund, including of any Subscription fees or of any unused funds in your Steam Wallet, will be granted.

        • r00ty@kbin.life
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          26 days ago

          And twitter / x most likely have a similar rule. And musk could have achieved similar by just banning the account.

          There’s no reason to give it to Jones. He doesn’t own any of the applicable ip any more. Maybe there’s an argument if he tried that.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        26 days ago

        If valve cancel your steam account, you lose your games and they owe you a big fat zero.

        That really depends on how good the consumer protection laws are in your jurisdiction. Not every country is as bad as the USA in terms of consumer protection… Some countries have laws that priorize people over corporations.

        • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          26 days ago

          Im curious which countries require Steam reimburse you if they cancel your account. That feels like something that’d be talked about a lot more.

          • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            26 days ago

            Not that example specifically, but Steam got in big trouble with Australia’s consumer commission for their refund policy. You know how Steam refunds are so permissive these days? It’s because in 2016, Valve had to pay 3 million dollars to Australia for lying to customers about the refund policy and were forced to improve their game. One country can make a big difference to your consumer rights, even if you don’t live there.

            • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              26 days ago

              Drags talking about a completely different subject. Drags comment doesn’t have anything to do with the comments Drag is replying to.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            26 days ago

            In Australia at least, if you buy a product or service but can’t use it in the intended way, that’s considered a “major failure” and they’d need to provide a refund. Not sure how well it’d apply for games you’ve had for a very long time though.

              • dan@upvote.au
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                26 days ago

                Not sure - don’t think I know anyone in Australia who has had their Steam account cancelled.

    • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      25 days ago

      lol why though?

      Why not just blindly put your trust in the investors behind Bluesky not to screw you over? Every case of that kind of thing happening is in the past and I am looking to the future which looks bright and blue!

  • theluddite@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    26 days ago

    I don’t disagree but I’d say that there’s a more important lesson here: The concept of ownership is mediated by a legal system that gives the wealthy a special pass. Rich people can pay lawyers to make up concepts like “superior ownership” 'til the cows come home, and any subsequent precedent costs $600/hr to even access. None of us should feel secure under this system about our online lives or our fucking houses, even if we “own” them.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      26 days ago

      Concepts like “fair”, “balanced”, and “democracy” can not exist under Capitalism, because money is speech and power, and the small elite who control thousands/millions more capital than average control everything thousands/millions times more than average.

  • osugi_sakae@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    26 days ago

    Am I correct in seeing this as the company is claiming that courts of law cannot require them to transfer control of an account from one user to a different user? This despite the fact that doing so has been fairly standard practice for years now?

    Personally, I think the lawyers for The Site Previously Known As Twitter have a very weak argument. However, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, so there’s also that.

    • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      25 days ago

      The fediverse is very different. Every valuable account will have its own instance and abide by its own rules

  • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    26 days ago

    I own my own social media accounts if I run my own instances.

    If I use third party social media, then I do not own any account I create on it.