• @anteaters@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    151 year ago

    Yeah why would they pay the “owner”? It’s their platform they do whatever they want. What a dumb thing to complain about.

      • @anteaters@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        Yeah they even offered him some bullshit as compensation that they were not required to. Don’t expect decency from a huge company like Twitter.

          • @anteaters@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            Yeah we should totally expect decency from the social platform filled with Nazis that is run by a billionaire edgelord catering to them.

            • Flying Squid
              link
              fedilink
              English
              141 year ago

              We should expect decency from corporation in general and if we really had the balls, we’d all be out in the streets demanding it.

              • metaStatic
                link
                fedilink
                51 year ago

                remove limited liability and watch them suddenly grow a conscience

        • @Q63x@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          I like how we all like to pretend that these companies are not run by people. Company is not being an asshole people who were in charge of this transition were.

      • @anteaters@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        151 year ago

        Contrary to Twitter banking is regulated and governed by actual laws. It’s a completely different beast. Go ahead and google who the owner of the money in your account is and how that is regulated.

      • @apollo440@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        8
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not defending the Musk here, but literally it’s not your money anymore as soon as you put it in a bank account.

        The money you put in your account belongs to the bank, and the account functions as an I.O.U… A very privileged one compared to other debts, and in most cases redeemable without notice, but you’re in fact just another creditor.

    • hoodatninja
      link
      fedilink
      16
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s their platform they do whatever they want.

      Yes.

      What a dumb thing to complain about.

      I mean if I had a social media account just taken from me without warning or recourse I’d at the very least be irritated. How about you give me your account password and just let me take over? You can just go make a new one.

      • @anteaters@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        The “dumb thing” to complain about is that they did not pay him any money. It’s a dick move that they took it but I don’t get why anyone would think they would buy it off the “owner”. He was offered some gestures and apparently expected them to want or take it.

        • hoodatninja
          link
          fedilink
          111 year ago

          The “dumb thing” to complain about is that they did not pay him any money.

          They’d pay a celebrity for it. Why should we be any different?

          It’s a dick move

          Yes that’s literally what everyone is saying. We aren’t asserting “rights” on twitter or something.

          • @anteaters@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Because a celebrity has clout to make a big stink of it. The headline isn’t only “Mean twitter took account from user!” but contains “He got zero dollars for it.” as if he was entitled to that in any way.

            Yes that’s literally what everyone is saying. We aren’t asserting “rights” on twitter or something.

            I believe that too, but look at the replies - there are people who literally believe they own their account or compare it to personal property or their bank accounts.

            • hoodatninja
              link
              fedilink
              7
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              We must be in different threads because I’m not seeing that. Unless you want to stretch that one comment about identity theft or the one about banking a fair bit.

              • @anteaters@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Then you might actually be in a different thread. One guy believes this is the same as the bank taking their money and never returning it and another one believes this is like taking people’s belongings because they enter your property.

      • @anteaters@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Interpreting this as me approving of Musk’s action is just even more retarded than buying Twitter and renaming it to X.

        • @over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Interpreting your words just shows how much you don’t give a shit that someone lost their username because some dumb rich prick likes the letter X.

          You’d be whistling a different tune if it was your username.

          • @anteaters@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Yeah you are reading into my post whatever you want to read. I was always talking about them complaining “He got zero dollards for it.” as if he was in any way entitled to that. I’m sure it sucks for the user that Twitter just took the account but I really don’t give a crap about the Twitter shitshow.

            • @over_clox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              Hey, I’m with ya there, to hell with Twitter, but still, people literally make, build up and sell user accounts every day. Elon is one of the richest dudes in the world, the least he could have done was compensated the original account owner.

            • VenoraTheBarbarian
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              I do not get how you’re so confused.

              It’s not that he was “entitled” to money, it’s that money would have made taking his handle less of a dick move. Elon is a multi billionaire, he could have thrown a tens of thousands of dollars at this dude and had a good PR situation for his generosity, and not even noticed the dip in his bank account. Instead the story is that he’s an asshole who treats his users like shit if they have something he wants.

              So here we are, calling him an asshole. How is that confusing?

              • @anteaters@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                I’m not confused and I agree that he’s an asshole. I still think its dumb to expect to get paid by Twitter when they take over your handle. Musk is not about good PR or good will, Hwang is lucky he wasn’t called a pedo by Musk - yet. And there are indeed people here who believe they are entitled to compensation and think they own their stupid Twitter name. How is that confusing?

    • @howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      131 year ago

      No one is owed anything, but not compensating the original owner further erodes what little trust was left in the company. You wouldn’t want to spend resources building a brand on a platform where your name can suddenly get snatched away at some billionaire’s whim.

      • @anteaters@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Absolutely true. But apparently the headlines for this event are all “he got no money for it!”

        • @MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          Up until it was taken from him, he would have been able to sell it for a shit tonne of money. I think it’s easy to understand why it was shitty of Twitter yo just snatch it

    • pjhenry1216
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      Because there’s precedent that handles have value (on the order of thousands of USD). They’re taking value from a customer. It’d be interesting to see what swag they offered in exchange, but considering the guy’s net worth, he could have afforded some decency. I mean, Gmail can just take your email address to, but it is how many identify themselves in business, so it can harm them financially. Sure, that’s the risk with doing that, but it is what it is. Musk could have generated some good will but instead generated more bad publicity. I’m beginning to think he has no PR on staff or just surrounds himself with people who never say no.

      • @anteaters@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Is there a precedent for Twitter buying an account “back” from a user? IIRC all deals regarding Twitter accounts have been made between users.

        • pjhenry1216
          link
          fedilink
          61 year ago

          The precedent is that the handle has value. It’s a bad look when a company destroys value for a user, regardless of whether they have the right to or not. The internet is full of people complaining when Google shuts down a YouTube channel. It’s essentially the same thing. You expect a good reason or exchange to occur to make the customer whole.

          I don’t understand where your confusion lies. The guy got screwed over for being a loyal user of the service, despite Musk not owning it for that whole duration.

          The guy was offered swag, but I couldn’t find details of what it was. And as far as I can tell, this isn’t really decrying the lack of money. Just how they handled the situation as a whole.

          You understand how it’s an asshole move, but don’t understand why someone would expect some compensation for the dick move? When someone gives their spouse some roses because they acted like an ass, are you confused by the roses?

    • Little1Lost
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      the main problem with this is that with them doing it without asking or time to prepare all the people the guy knew where lost or have a problem finding him.
      And the huy was seemingly not even a nobody but instead had a company so even more company contacts could get lost or customers wanting to directly reach out to him could sent private data to a 3 party (twitter) about confidential informations.

      Secondly it says that the company can and will take over accounts when they have some reason, even if it is only the name.
      That means the trust in the handle gets completly broken because it could be a twitter account in just a few seconds without warning.
      So they have the power to take over an official governement or news account without warning and only leaving a reason. This is theoretical but if there is a news station with a handle like “xnews” i can really expect that it gets taken over in some time in the future.

      • @anteaters@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        I agree with all of this. I just think it’s idiotic to complain that they didn’t pay him. Twitter handles are not “owned” by the user and the platform can and will do with them whatever they like at any time.

    • LinkOpensChest.wav
      link
      English
      71 year ago

      TIL if anyone carries anything valuable onto my property, it entitles me to take it from them

      My property, my rules /s

      • @anteaters@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        TIL the original user of the “@x” account owned it and brought it to Twitter who then took it from him.

          • @anteaters@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            You might be surprised to learn that you do in fact not “own” your Twitter handle and Twitter is not required to buy it off of you if they want it.

            • LinkOpensChest.wav
              link
              English
              61 year ago

              Oh really? Wow, maybe if I licked more boots it would make me smarter enough to “understand” this

    • @demonsword@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      It’s their platform they do whatever they want

      Their platform only has value because people use it. Mistreat your users, they go elsewhere and suddenly your platform becomes worthless.

    • @papertowels
      link
      English
      61 year ago

      They certainly can do whatever they want, but folks are still able to call musk out for being a bully.

      It’s the same reasoning behind folks confusing freedom of speech with freedom from consequences of their speech.

    • digdug
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Why do you assume that complaining is the same as saying Twitter isn’t allowed to do this? I can still think it’s shitty without thinking they aren’t allowed to do it.

      • @anteaters@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        I think it’s dumb to go “He got zero dollars for it.” as it sounds like he was owed anything. I also feel that it creates confusion with people being paid for a TLD they owned (or “squatted” on) which is something very different from having a Twitter handle. But apparently that’s just me.