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.

 

[cts]

Very sad. Musk could've at least paid the owner of the account @x, even if he's the owner of Twitter..

 

[bmugford]

This is pretty f*cked up.

So it was just seized, after being in use since 2007?

Even if the person was offered compensation, it was not like they had any choice.

If they wanted it, they were just going to take it.

This situation shows the value of domain names.

Brad

 

[decades80]

Such a socialist move I wouldnt expect from Mr. Musk.

 

[bmugford]

Elon Musk and company take @x handle from its original user. He got zero dollars for it.​

https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-twitter-take-x-handle-from-original-user

Twitter, the online town hall for free speech, only where they can just snatch your username because they feel like it.

I have even seen some of the biggest Elon fanboys have a major problem with this.

Brad

 

[silentg]

Message from previous owner:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684023924949151744

What does it mean? i don't know. Your guess is good as mine.

 

[J.D.]

I agree it sucks to have a @handle seized, but it was expected.
On the flip side, everything related to this X.com rebrand has increased value of dotCom domains this week.

1. X.com has the entire world talking about dotCom.
2. Brands should be rethinking their prioritization of their own dotCom.
3.Brands may start to wean themselves off their dependency to third party platforms.

Some claim owner of @ X was offering the handle for $1M and as much as I hate to see the handle seized, it was in violation of Twitter TOS. They can check your DMs and history anytime they please, private or not.

Sure, people have been selling Twitter handles for years, even employees were taking money under the table during the prior regime in violation.

Elon will make a lot of money next year when they start dropping unused handles and auction them to brands and the public.

If you are a brand, the time to focus on your own domain development is now.

 

[Nick]

Message from previous owner:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684023924949151744

What does it mean? i don't know. Your guess is good as mine.

It means he knows he can’t do a thing about it.

 

[Nick]

Sure, people have been selling Twitter handles for years, even employees were taking money under the table during the prior regime in violation.

There’s an entire forum for it, just like namePros but for social media handles.

 

[J.D.]

There’s an entire forum for it, just like namePros but for social media handles.

You are correct.
But Elon has already gone on record saying they are going to sell the handles in-house.

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/Twitter-Considers-Auction-for-Freed-Up-Usernames/640216/

If you don't buy via the auction platform they are establishing; you could end up like Mr. Hwang formerly known as @ X.

 

[Keith]

These are the cases where a lawsuit has to happen to set precedent.

Yes, their TOS says they can remove a handle but it has to be in good faith. I’d sue and even contribute money to this guys case if he wants to proceed.

@jberryhill what are your thoughts on this one? TOS should be abolished or regulated so that companies can’t take your child if it’s in the fine print!

 

[J.D.]

These are the cases where a lawsuit has to happen to set precedent.

Yes, their TOS says they can remove a handle but it has to be in good faith. I’d sue and even contribute money to this guys case if he wants to proceed.

@jberryhill what are your thoughts on this one? TOS should be abolished or regulated so that companies can’t take your child if it’s in the fine print!

The TOS forbids selling of handles.
Its been reported the @ X former user was trying to sell the handle for $1M.

If its true, Mr. Hwang would be in violation of TOS.

You don't own your twitter handle, X does apparently.

Still, if you believe in his case contact him and set up a gofundme, I'm sure a lawyer somewhere will be glad to take the money during these recessionary times.

 

[Keith]

The TOS forbids selling of handles.
Its been reported the @ X former user was trying to sell the handle for $1M.

If its true, Mr. Hwang would be in violation of TOS.

You don't own your twitter handle, X does apparently.

Show attachment 243543

Still, if you believe in his case contact him and set up a gofundme, I'm sure a lawyer somewhere will be glad to take the money during these recessionary times.

Was he actively trying to sell or did he say there were offers? Two different things…

And btw, if he broke rules of tos, the timing of Elon stealing his handle is impeccable.

 

[Nick]

Was he actively trying to sell or did he say there were offers? Two different things…

And btw, if he broke rules of tos, the timing of Elon stealing his handle is impeccable.

I’m with you. He said he “would sell if approached.” That doesn’t sound, to me, like he was actively marketing it for sale.

I’m also pretty active on the social media handle secondary market and have never seen it offered for sale.

 

[J.D.]

Was he actively trying to sell or did he say there were offers? Two different things…

And btw, if he broke rules of tos, the timing of Elon stealing his handle is impeccable.

Based on reports he received many offers for the premium @ X handle.
If he was negotiating behind his privacy wall, its something X would have easy access to review.

I don't believe in trusting a business or brand to any third party platform.

X has been suspending non-active users accounts sitting on premium handles all year.

Just thinking about the top 20,000 English dictionary terms and an average sell price of $10K, would bank $200M from this forthcoming public auction.

No way they'd allow Mr. Hwang to sit on X, while other brands pay them $10K, $100K, or -? for premium handles.

 

[Keith]

Based on reports he received many offers for the premium @ X handle.
If he was negotiating behind his privacy wall, its something X would have easy access to review.

I don't believe in trusting a business or brand to any third party platform.

X has been suspending non-active users accounts sitting on premium handles all year.

Just thinking about the top 20,000 English dictionary terms and an average sell price of $10K, would bank $200M from this forthcoming public auction.

No way they'd allow Mr. Hwang to sit on X, while other brands pay them $10K, $100K, or -? for premium handles.

The @x owner got done wrong, period. Any argument against that position is ludicrous.

 

[.X.]

I was X before Elon was LOL...

 

[J.D.]

The @x owner got done wrong, period. Any argument against that position is ludicrous.

Agreed.

The former user was fleeced of an opportunity to cash in on a premium handle. If its true he received $10K, $50K, or $100K offers, he should have taken the money. If the allegations are true, he overplayed his hand.

Nevertheless, an objective counter point doesn't equal ludicrous.

When you and Mr. Hwang file your case against the world's richest man with a dark sense of humor; ludicrous won't be a strong enough argument.

You'll need to counter the points presented because it'll be at least one of the arguments you'll need to overcome.

 

[Keith]

Agreed.

The former user was fleeced of an opportunity to cash in on a premium handle. If its true he received $10K, $50K, or $100K offers, he should have taken the money. If the allegations are true, he overplayed his hand.

Nevertheless, an objective counter point doesn't equal ludicrous.

When you and Mr. Hwang file your case against the world's richest man with a dark sense of humor; ludicrous won't be a strong enough argument.

You'll need to counter the points presented because it'll be at least one of the arguments you'll need to overcome.

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

 

[J.D.]

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

Yep, my argument that Mr. Hwang was:

1. not an owner, but a user
2. its reported he violated the TOS
3. ludicrous isn't an argument that will hold up in Court
4. Better to have taken $50K, than leave with $0

Very stupid.

Good luck with your case