discuss Let @x be a cautionary tale

[Nick]

This is exactly why businesses shouldn't be run solely on social media handles. A domain name should be the FIRST destination for customers.

 

[jberryhill]

Well, this thread when into a completely different direction than I had anticipated.

Maybe the point wasn't made clearly enough.

If you want stuff for free, you take what you get on the terms it is offered, or you don't. That applies to Twitter, me, and pretty much everything else.

The tow truck operator didn't owe me a ride. Nobody owes me work on my deck. I don't owe you a chair on my deck. And Elon Musk - as miserable a dumb sonofabitch as that man is - does not owe this guy a Twitter handle.

However, my client did not owe him Tesla .com either.

https://www.eteknix.com/tesla-pick-tesla-com-domain/

What caused Grossman to give up the Tesla domain is currently unknown. According to Bloomberg, John Berryhill, an attorney in Pennsylvania who represented Grossman in a past dispute with Tesla Industries Inc stated that Grossman had bought the domain for personal use due to his affinity for the inventor Tesla.

 

[Nick]

Maybe the point wasn't made clearly enough.

If you want stuff for free, you take what you get on the terms it is offered, or you don't. That applies to Twitter, me, and pretty much everything else.

The tow truck operator didn't owe me a ride. Nobody owes me work on my deck. I don't owe you a chair on my deck. And Elon Musk - as miserable a dumb sonofabitch as that man is - does not owe this guy a Twitter handle.

However, my client did not owe him Tesla .com either.

Not sure why you’re directing this to me lol

I just came here to create a thread reinforcing the idea that domain names are superior to social network usernames

 

[jberryhill]

Oh, I thought I was being accused of threadjacking. Sometimes I make a point in a dramatic way.

But, yes, you are correct. If you use someone else's service, you do so on the terms offered.

 

[bmugford]

TOS aside, this is not the type of action that really builds much trust when it comes to creating some "all-in-one" super app. Even many Elon stans are in an uproar over this.

A couple days ago Elon decided he wanted Twitter to be X, then the @xvideos account was suspended and they just seized the @x username.

The same TOS would allow them to just take any other username they want, no matter how long the party has used it...no matter how much time and money has been dedicated to it.

I am not about to hand over the keys to my banking and others services to some company being run by someone so impulsive and impetuous.

It also shows why domain names are superior to building on someone else's platform.

Brad

 

[cooljub]

I was X before Elon was LOL...

Let's hope he doesn't buy namepros.

 

[.X.]

Let's hope he doesn't buy namepros.

… nah ..

 

[bmugford]

If it's any consolation...

 

[jberryhill]

TOS aside, this is not the type of action that really builds much trust when it comes to creating some "all-in-one" super app.

Yep.

Eventually, if I keep kicking people out of my restaurant or telling them to sit at another table - as I have a right to do - is going to convince them not to come back.

I certainly sympathize with the guy. But if I want to find the greatest injustice of the day to which I would donate money to rectify, it wouldn’t be this. This guy isn’t losing a roof over his head, his health or his life, unlike other people in the skinny end of the sword of justice.

 

[silentg]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684339335888338944

Edit: The screenshot was the message that the @x owner got.
https://deadline.com/2023/07/elon-m...-merch-twitter-handle-deactivated-1235448699/

 

[equity78]

Exqueeze me?

What do you think I do for a living? You think food magically falls onto my table?

I got a letter from my HOA that my deck is in bad shape and they are going to fine me if it is not fixed. Now, when I bought my place, I was told that the deck is part of the outside fixtures that the community maintains. Well, gee, they changed that on me somewhere along the line.

So, I've been calling around trying to get someone out here in the middle of the g-d-mmed summer to see if I can get my deck fixed and NOT ONE of them cares about the great injustice done to me. They just want to get paid to fix my deck. I had a guy quote me $3000 a while back, I agreed, and he's been a no-show ever since.

Well, s--t, I guess he found something that pays better than solving my problem.

I have NEVER had an auto mechanic, plumber, or any other service provider do a thing for me because, gosh, I deserved to have it done for me. Every damn one of them wants to make sure they get paid first. It was really unfair that my car broke down when it did, or my pipes burst, or whatever.

Back in 1989, I was sitting out on the side of a snow-covered road in the middle of the night in Indiana with an engine that quit on me. I'd finished by doctoral work and was on my way to my first job clean across the country from Delaware to Utah in a 1972 VW bus that gave out in Indiana. I was alone in the cold in the middle of the night. My first son was born two weeks earlier, my wife was recovering from the C-section, I had maybe $500 to my name, and my first paycheck after years of graduate school was another three weeks away, but I needed to get to that job. Tow truck showed up and the guy wanted CASH before he'd back it up to my front end. Can you imagine? If I didn't have money, he'd have left me out there to freeze.

Hell, I was wheeled into an ER with a heart attack five years ago and the first thing THEY wanted to know how they were going to get paid.

I'm supposed to be up in arms about this guy losing his Twitter handle, and give two s--ts of my time so that HE can get paid?

YOU said you'd "even contribute money to this guys case" - that's how the subject of money came up.

I don't know what you do for a living but how about this. Quit doing whatever it is you do, go around helping other people make money for free, and let me know how that works out for you.

This is the United States of America. If I want to give away services for free - like Twitter does - then I can make any danged rules I want. Any business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all - provided it is not among a short list of prohibited reasons (i.e. public accommodations based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, advanced age, or disability). If I don't want to do business with you because your name is "Kevin" and I don't like people named "Kevin", then I'm free to do that. Maybe next week, I won't do business with anyone named "Bryan" and I can do that too.

If I don't like your attitude, I can kick you out of my bar, my shop, my club or whatever else I'm running that you're using. If walk into my restaurant and I want to use your table for something else, I'll re-seat you somewhere else or you can leave. It's my restaurant and I'll run it my way.

I mean, can you imagine?

How about if I give everyone a free picnic out on my deck every Saturday, if I ever find someone I can afford who feels like actually showing up to fix it. Now, one of my deck chairs rocks and the rest of them just stay in one position, so that chair is more comfortable than the others. Every weekend you show up and you sit in that chair that I provide you for free. One weekend, I decide, you know what, I'd like to sit in that chair instead. You get all worked up at me and say you're going to sue me because I'm not going to let you use the chair that I provide you, for free, on my damned deck? GTFO of here.

I've done a lot of work for people who couldn't pay, and quite a bit for people who didn't pay. But nobody is entitled to freebies - including their Twitter handles.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, one thing you ARE entitled to get for free in the US is a lawyer if you are criminally charged and can't afford one. You can't get a doctor, a plumber, an optometrist, or a chicken dinner for free, but you can get a lawyer.

Anyone who wants to pitch in to get my deck fixed, please DM.

What should I bring to the picnic John? You going to barbecue?

 

[equity78]

Well, this thread when into a completely different direction than I had anticipated.

Yeah that seems to be the way things work in domaining. X.site nice.

 

[poweredbyme]

users have consumer rights. Even if an online service is provided for free of charge, online service providers can't make profit without users. Users may try to claim compensation for their losses from service providers. I am just a poor finance expert, not a lawyer and this is not a professional legal advice.

 

[jberryhill]

Well alrighty then. I demand to have my geocities website back. Do you hear me, Yahoo!

After that, I demand that AOL turn Instant Messenger back on!

These things were taken from me with no compensation!

 

[poweredbyme]

Well alrighty then. I demand to have my geocities website back. Do you hear me, Yahoo!

After that, I demand that AOL turn Instant Messenger back on!

These things were taken from me with no compensation!

Those examples are irrelevant. If online providers shut down the service completely, they stop making profit from users.

 

[Sutruk]

Well alrighty then. I demand to have my geocities website back. Do you hear me, Yahoo!

After that, I demand that AOL turn Instant Messenger back on!

These things were taken from me with no compensation!

Well I think those accounts were shut down equally for everyone... because the service was finished, end of life.

Of course, when it comes to private companies, I think "almost" everything is written in their TOS, what they can do and what they can't... But there could be abusive clauses that can be disputed?

I mean, let's say you had a Twitter handle where you worked let's say some years to grow your followers... you know, some people nowadays do business and make a life having thousands of followers on social media.

Then, the CEO comes and takes off your handle because... well, just because he wants (let's say because he has seen the light and a big X that marks the spot). Of course, not before offering you a T-shirt and a ride to see their "Disneyland" offices.

I don't know the @x handle case, but if the guy put some effort developing that handle (or even the @xvideos handle) Could they ask for some damage, even if in X's TOS they appear as the supreme GOD of their world where they can do whatever they want?

Sometimes... even if you have a free service, you cannot do whatever you want with your customers...

1.2 billion euro fine for Facebook as a result of EDPB binding decision​

https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/12-billion-euro-fine-facebook-result-edpb-binding-decision_en

------------------------------------------------

Anyway, what happened to the @x and @xvideos handles just proves that no one should rely on a social media account to do any business.

 

[ARCCLOUD]

TOS aside, this is not the type of action that really builds much trust when it comes to creating some "all-in-one" super app. Even many Elon stans are in an uproar over this.

A couple days ago Elon decided he wanted Twitter to be X, then the @xvideos account was suspended and they just seized the @x username.

The same TOS would allow them to just take any other username they want, no matter how long the party has used it...no matter how much time and money has been dedicated to it.

I am not about to hand over the keys to my banking and others services to some company being run by someone so impulsive and impetuous.

It also shows why domain names are superior to building on someone else's platform.

Brad

Exactly, this is why even die-hard Musketeers are fuming. Elon, Mr. Tesla, SpaceX, and Flamethrower could've played this cooler. Swiping the @X handle without compensating? Not cool. He really dropped the ball and could have played this differently. Missed opportunity.

 

[poweredbyme]

Well I think those accounts were shut down equally for everyone... because the service was finished, end of life.

You are right.

There are 2 parties. Online service providers and users. Based on my finance knowledge, one party is not allowed to make profit knowingly from financial losses of other party. If it happens users may try to claim compensation from online service providers. This is the point where laws and lawyers could be involved. Users can hire lawyers to claim compensation. I should repeat, I am not a lawyer.

Service providers are not making profit from their services that ended. Losses can't be compensated for non-existing services. Because nobody is making profit from losses, from anything and anyone. Nothing can be compensated in such a case.

 

[Sutruk]

I suppose this is Elon's "free speech" --> Pay $1,000 on ads per month or lose your verification checkmark.

"WSJ: X, formerly Twitter, presses major companies to advertise on its site, telling them to spend money on X or lose ability to control their brand identity on the new X"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684390515008208898

--------------------------------

X Will Strip Brands of Verified Checkmarks if They Don’t Spend on Ads (Report)​

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/x-strip-brands-verified-checkmarks-170458036.html

"Brands that haven’t spent at least $1,000 on X ads in the past 30 days or $6,000 in the past 180 days will lose their golden verification checkmarks starting Aug. 7, according to a report. These checkmarks establish that an account legitimately belongs to the brand it claims to represent.

Without a gold checkmark, brands run the risk of impersonators mimicking their accounts. It’s unclear if X has protections in place to ensure that, should a real brand forfeit its checkmark, impersonators cannot make a fake brand account then spend the requisite amount of money on ads to claim a gold checkmark, effectively gaining more “legitimacy” than the real brand page."

 

[bmugford]

I suppose this is Elon's "free speech" --> Pay $1,000 on ads per month or lose your verification checkmark.

"WSJ: X, formerly Twitter, presses major companies to advertise on its site, telling them to spend money on X or lose ability to control their brand identity on the new X"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684390515008208898

--------------------------------

X Will Strip Brands of Verified Checkmarks if They Don’t Spend on Ads (Report)​

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/x-strip-brands-verified-checkmarks-170458036.html

"Brands that haven’t spent at least $1,000 on X ads in the past 30 days or $6,000 in the past 180 days will lose their golden verification checkmarks starting Aug. 7, according to a report. These checkmarks establish that an account legitimately belongs to the brand it claims to represent.

Without a gold checkmark, brands run the risk of impersonators mimicking their accounts. It’s unclear if X has protections in place to ensure that, should a real brand forfeit its checkmark, impersonators cannot make a fake brand account then spend the requisite amount of money on ads to claim a gold checkmark, effectively gaining more “legitimacy” than the real brand page."

This almost feels like a protection racket. Pay us money, or your brand could be damaged.

It's amazing how all these changes involve lining the pockets of the world's richest man.

Who knew "free speech" cost so much.

 

[eyedomainous]

This is exactly why businesses shouldn't be run solely on social media handles. A domain name should be the FIRST destination for customers.

Unfortunately its a cautionary tale domainers can't tell well because most of their pages are also controlled by third party platforms.

Another HUGE missed domain marketing moment WASTED, across the board...
from twitching 'Twitter' to floundering Threads to redux Reddits.

Reddit takes over one of the biggest protesting subreddits​

 

[anantj]

No offense, your argument is really stupid, not that you have one. I mean your response is dumb as …

Point is, TOS is BS. It should be outlawed but just one of many things that should be addressed for the progressions of online business.

Oh, the irony of this. Just because you do not agree with the TOS does not make it BS or made illegal.
To quote "No offense, your argument is really stupid, not that you have one. I mean your response is dumb as …"

 

[Andreas B.]

Interesting is, that in the bluesky app you can use your domain as handle.

However, since the Twitter/ Threads battle, no one talks about bluesky anymore ....

I received my invitation to bluesky, one day after Threads was announced.

That was awkward.

 

[anantj]

Users may try to claim compensation for their losses from service providers.

On the basis of what? What loss did the user of @x suffer? And what is the contractual relationship between the user and xitter?

Based on my finance knowledge, one party is not allowed to make profit knowingly from financial losses of other party

What is the financial loss that the user of @ x suffer? What exactly is it based on? And further, what is the financial contractual relationship between the user and xitter?

Those examples are irrelevant. If online providers shut down the service completely, they stop making profit from users.

Well, a lot of online platforms don't make a profit despite not being shut down. What is your point?

Could they ask for some damage, even if in X's TOS they appear as the supreme GOD of their world where they can do whatever they want?

On what basis can there ben an ask for damages? Who forced the user to agree to the ToS instead of merely walking away?

 

[Gabriel360]

On the basis of what? What loss did the user of @x suffer? And what is the contractual relationship between the user and xitter?


What is the financial loss that the user of @ x suffer? What exactly is it based on? And further, what is the financial contractual relationship between the user and xitter?


Well, a lot of online platforms don't make a profit despite not being shut down. What is your point?


On what basis can there ben an ask for damages? Who forced the user to agree to the ToS instead of merely walking away?

You sound like a fanboy.

Elon has set a terrible precedent by seizing an active username.

Elon is a serial entrepreneur. What happens when he decides to start a new business and takes over another premium name. And another. And another.

Your query about what losses the user suffered is also disturbing because one would expect a domain investor to understand the importance of a premium name.

Plus if the user didn't suffer any loss, why is Elon and X scrambling to compensate him with merch, a meeting with Twitter management at their HQ and the OPTION to choose from a list of other dormant, but likely less valuable, usernames.

Does that not feel like a weak attempt at making reparations or do you think Elon goes around handing out these goodies like candy on Halloween?

 

[anantj]

You sound like a fanboy.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure how you determined that I support Elon Musk's or xitter's move. And if it wasn't already evident from my use of the term "xitter" pronounced as "shitter", I hope it is more evident now. I do not agree with or support this move. But that's not my point at all.

Irrespective of whether I dislike or do not support this move, it is "allowed" by xitter's ToS (IANAL). And that was my only point. You can assume whatever you want about me, I don't really give a shit. But the ToS is still enforceable and it does (potentially) allow xitter to commandeer a user's handle.

Elon has set a terrible precedent by seizing an active username.

Yes, it is a terrible precedent. Does not make it illegal

Elon is a serial entrepreneur. What happens when he decides to start a new business and takes over another premium name. And another. And another.

If it is allowed, yes he can (and probably will). But what this incident does is reduce users trust in him.

Your query about what losses the user suffered is also disturbing because one would expect a domain investor to understand the importance of a premium name.

Again, I'm not sure why this is relevant. Can you qualify what financial loss the user has suffered that they need to be compensated for? Was there a financial arrangement between the user and twitter for the use of that "premium" handle? And, importantly, Twitter has not violated any laws. It is a shitty situation, the twitter handle is super premium (I'm even jealous) but irrespective of all our opinions, from a legal perspective, Twitter does not owe the user anything. Look at the who incident without emotion or bias. Ethically, twitter's move is wrong, in extremely poor taste and kills user trust in them. But legally, I believe, it is kosher.

Plus if the user didn't suffer any loss, why is Elon and X scrambling to compensate him with merch, a meeting with Twitter management at their HQ and the OPTION to choose from a list of other dormant, but likely less valuable, usernames.

Showboating. This is a bad move on Twitter's part. They're not idiotic enough to not understand that. To try to salvage some PR, they offer these shit "compensatory items" as a sign of good faith. No one is fooled.

Does that not feel like a weak attempt at making reparations or do you think Elon goes around handing out these goodies like candy on Halloween?

Absolutely. It is an extremely weak attempt.