1362
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
1362 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
60252 readers
2967 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah why would they pay the "owner"? It's their platform they do whatever they want. What a dumb thing to complain about.
There is this thing called decency. You might have heard of it.
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.
Yeah we should totally expect decency from the social platform filled with Nazis that is run by a billionaire edgelord catering to them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's not how banks work.
It's certainly how banks work where I live, and presuming we are talking about the US here, I did a quick skim through the first few results on google and there mostly seems to be agreement that it is a debtor/creditor relationship.
How would you describe the legal arrangements of a bank account then?
Former banker here. You're just fucking wrong about that. You've said zero true things.
Well I'm interested now. It certainly is the case where I live, and presuming we are talking about the US here, I did a quick skim through the first few results on google and they seem to agree that it's a debtor/creditor relationship.
How else would you describe the legal arrangements of a bank account then?
You own the money in your account, simple as that for individual accounts.
The transaction is "I give the bank money, and they have to give it back later". How can we arrange that legally without transferring ownership? I only know these ways:
Bailment: That would mean the bank keeps the physical bills (or other valuables) in a proverbial or literal safe with my name on it, to return the exact same items later. Of course banks offer that service, but that's not what we're talking about.
Trust: The bank takes my money and invests it on my behalf. It does not go on the bank's books, and they cannot use my money for their own purposes (e.g. as security for loans, to fulfil capital requirements, invest it themselves and keep the proceeds, etc.). This is obviously not the case.
Agency: The bank takes my money and executes transactions on my behalf, according to my orders. Again, obviously not the case.
Am I missing something? Is there some special law for bank accounts? I'm genuinely interested.
If by “money” you mean the physical dollar bills you put in the ATM, then yes.
You got downvoted to hell, but you're absolutely right. The fact that FDIC exists should be evidence enough to anyone with a functional brain that depositors in a bank are creditors and do not retain ownership of their literal deposit.
I wonder what other arrangement it could even possibly constitute.
Bailment? That would mean physically locking the bills that you deposit in a safe that you rent, which is possible I guess, but not what we're talking about here.
Trust? This would mean the deposit does not go on the bank's books, and they cannot use it for their own purposes. This is clearly not the case, at the very least since investment banks and savings banks were merged.
Agency? That would mean the bank uses your money to enact transactions on your behalf, again, clearly not the case.
That leaves the only other form of "I give you money and you give it back later", namely debt.
Yes.
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.
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.
They'd pay a celebrity for it. Why should we be any different?
Yes that's literally what everyone is saying. We aren't asserting "rights" on twitter or something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Absolutely true. But apparently the headlines for this event are all "he got no money for it!"
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
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.
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.
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.
Their platform only has value because people use it. Mistreat your users, they go elsewhere and suddenly your platform becomes worthless.
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.
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.
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.
Why do you CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARE?
TIL if anyone carries anything valuable onto my property, it entitles me to take it from them
My property, my rules /s
TIL the original user of the "@x" account owned it and brought it to Twitter who then took it from him.
Bingo
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.
Oh really? Wow, maybe if I licked more boots it would make me smarter enough to "understand" this
What you should have posted was nothing.