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.

 

[Keith]

Since buying handles is against TOS, how did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez obtain @aoc?

The system is rigged. Don’t use it!

 

[jberryhill]

Since buying handles is against TOS, how did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez obtain @aoc?

People buy and sell Twitter handles all of the time. Putting words in a TOS does not stop or prevent that, and there is no point in sending out the "TOS Police" if someone buys or sells a handle.

The reason companies put things like that in their TOS is that they don't want to end up being the "handle marketplace court" when people get upset over deals gone bad, sue each other, and then expect Twitter to enforce their contracts.

The same thing is true of a lot of in-game items that people manage to buy and sell in gaming systems and so on.

Your question is like asking "If the pool has a sign that says 'no running' then why were there kids running next to the pool?" Because the "no running" sign doesn't enforce itself, and the reason for the sign is that if some kid gets hurt running near the pool, then nobody can sue the club for allowing kids to run next to it. They can point to the sign and say "the kids were breaking the rules and got hurt. we don't allow running."

Here, look at me. I'm a lawyer, breaking the law! Report me to the authorities:

I loitered there for a while. I admit it. It was in Gap, PA, you can find evidence on X. Call the police and see what they say.

I do it a lot. I actually go out of my way to loiter by "no loitering" signs, just for s...s and giggles. I'm a hardened serial loiterer.

So, you know why that sign is actually there (outside of a convenience store where I stopped and rested during a bike ride)?

It gives the police an excuse to tell anyone who is causing a problem to go away. But if you are just minding your own business and not causing any trouble, you can pretty much camp out under a "no loitering" sign as long as you want.

What's really bizarre is that it's already been explained that they don't "allow" handles to be sold because they don't want to be held responsible for people's disputes or the loss of "market value" of handles in the event of lost access, banning or whatever Elmo decides he wants to with X do after a weekend of snorting coke.

But, other than using the terms to protect themselves from getting drawn into disputes, why do you think they would give a s... if people sold handles, or why would they spend $1 of someone's time "policing" it?

 

[Keith]

The reason companies put things like that in their TOS is that they don't want to end up being the "handle marketplace court" when people get upset over deals gone bad, sue each other, and then expect Twitter to enforce their contracts.

Show attachment 253092

I loitered there for a while. I admit it.

Great pic!

As to why companies put xyz in their TOS, that’s your opinion, not a fact.

If what you’re saying is true then all TOS is obsolete because the literature is merely a suggestion.

Have you ever argued a case in the domain space where TOS came into play?

 

[scithe]

Great pic!

As to why companies put xyz in their TOS, that’s your opinion, not a fact.

If what you’re saying is true then all TOS is obsolete because the literature is merely a suggestion.

Have you ever argued a case in the domain space where TOS came into play?

TOS and EULA are hard to enforce because you can't force a person to read them. If someone decides to Next>Next>Next>Next>Agree they could argue that they clicked and skipped by mistake. There's no way to verify that I read and agreed to the TOS myself. Maybe my cat walked across my keyboard asdgakljgahdfhkl;jfdhasd;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; and agreed to it for me while I was in the kitchen.

 

[jberryhill]

As to why companies put xyz in their TOS, that’s your opinion, not a fact.

Yes, it's my opinion as a person who has written terms for various online services and engaged in disputes and litigation involving them, correct.

If what you’re saying is true then all TOS is obsolete because the literature is merely a suggestion.

Keith, that is like saying "because you got away with loitering, you can shoot up a bank and take all the money".

No, I'm pretty sure there wasn't a cop within a hundred miles of that sign that would give a s... that I was loitering, but plenty would care if I robbed a bank.

They would care if I was loitering if I was causing some kind of other problem. But they can't put a zillion things on the sign like "don't shout at people", "don't pick your nose", "don't stalk people or give them a hard time outside the store", "don't panhandle", "don't engage in prostitution", "don't get drunk".....

So, instead, they put up a sign that says "no loitering" so whatever it is you do to piss people off, they can tell you to go away.

A lot of TOS terms are like that. If you are causing a problem, they will find a way to enforce them. Otherwise, nobody cares.

Have you ever argued a case in the domain space where TOS came into play?

Absolutely. UDRP's are one example of a TOS provision.

What you are failing to understand is that if the TOS says, "you can't post death threats" and you post death threats, then, yeah, the service in question is likely to shut down your account. Because if they don't, then they are going to get sucked into legal consequences because of your behavior. Having a rule like that allows someone to get kicked out if they are going to cause you trouble, and leaves them with no recourse.

If your TOS says "you can't sell accounts" then you are only going to give a s... if it affects YOU in some way. Like I said, without it, then someone could claim their account was worth $XXXX and you wouldn't let them back in after they lost their password or whatever. It also means that accounts in your service aren't going to get tied up in legal disputes between people arguing about sales gone bad. Your answer to getting drawn into any lawsuit over a contract that someone is claiming would obligate you to transfer a domain name is "the contract is void, because we don't recognize sales."

But the larger point that you seem not to grasp is that it is up to ANY service provider when or whether they are going to enforce their TOS in any particular circumstances, because it is ALSO a provision of pretty much every TOS to have two very important terms:

1. A provision that there are no "third party beneficiaries" in the terms. What this means is that I can't go to court and force Namepros to ban a user because *I* think someone else violated the Namepros terms. In other words, the only "beneficiaries" of the contract (which is what the terms are) are the user and Namepros. I don't get to enforce those terms.

2. A provision that the service provider has the right, but not the obligation, to enforce the terms. That's pretty easy to understand, and it dovetails with not having any third party beneficiaries. In other words, it is up to the service provider, and not some busybody, whether or not the service provider exercises its right to enforce the terms in any particular circumstances.

Look at it this way. You can have a general rule in your house that says "Nobody is allowed to wear a red shirt in my house, and I can enforce this rule in my discretion." Now, your best friend shows up wearing a red shirt. Are you going to kick him out because some stranger on the sidewalk is shouting "Hey, that guy is wearing a red shirt, you need to kick him out."

No, you aren't. It's up to you whether to enforce your own red shirt rule. And the only time you are going to care is if a bunch of people from the local 'red shirt gang' show up at your place and you want to kick them out.

But seriously Keith. How many people and how much money do you think Twitter is going to pay in order to find out whether people are selling handles and then doing what? Twitter is only going to care about a rule like that if it impacts them in some way, such as people getting into bad deals and then crying to Twitter or going to court to try to force Twitter to enforce their deals. No, Twitter isn't going to do that. The rule gives them the ability to say "f--- off" if people come crying to them, or drag them into a lawsuit, over a deal gone bad. But the idea that Twitter gives a flying frog's fart whether two people sell a domain name, and are going to spend all day investigating that, is just silly.

I'm not kidding, though. Whenever I see a "no loitering" sign, I just HAVE to loiter there for at least a little while, just to be a badass.

 

[Wesley S]

Yes, it's my opinion as a person who has written terms for various online services and engaged in disputes and litigation involving them, correct.



Keith, that is like saying "because you got away with loitering, you can shoot up a bank and take all the money".

No, I'm pretty sure there wasn't a cop within a hundred miles of that sign that would give a s... that I was loitering, but plenty would care if I robbed a bank.

They would care if I was loitering if I was causing some kind of other problem. But they can't put a zillion things on the sign like "don't shout at people", "don't pick your nose", "don't stalk people or give them a hard time outside the store", "don't panhandle", "don't engage in prostitution", "don't get drunk".....

So, instead, they put up a sign that says "no loitering" so whatever it is you do to piss people off, they can tell you to go away.

A lot of TOS terms are like that. If you are causing a problem, they will find a way to enforce them. Otherwise, nobody cares.



Absolutely. UDRP's are one example of a TOS provision.

What you are failing to understand is that if the TOS says, "you can't post death threats" and you post death threats, then, yeah, the service in question is likely to shut down your account. Because if they don't, then they are going to get sucked into legal consequences because of your behavior. Having a rule like that allows someone to get kicked out if they are going to cause you trouble, and leaves them with no recourse.

If your TOS says "you can't sell accounts" then you are only going to give a s... if it affects YOU in some way. Like I said, without it, then someone could claim their account was worth $XXXX and you wouldn't let them back in after they lost their password or whatever. It also means that accounts in your service aren't going to get tied up in legal disputes between people arguing about sales gone bad. Your answer to getting drawn into any lawsuit over a contract that someone is claiming would obligate you to transfer a domain name is "the contract is void, because we don't recognize sales."

But the larger point that you seem not to grasp is that it is up to ANY service provider when or whether they are going to enforce their TOS in any particular circumstances, because it is ALSO a provision of pretty much every TOS to have two very important terms:

1. A provision that there are no "third party beneficiaries" in the terms. What this means is that I can't go to court and force Namepros to ban a user because *I* think someone else violated the Namepros terms. In other words, the only "beneficiaries" of the contract (which is what the terms are) are the user and Namepros. I don't get to enforce those terms.

2. A provision that the service provider has the right, but not the obligation, to enforce the terms. That's pretty easy to understand, and it dovetails with not having any third party beneficiaries. In other words, it is up to the service provider, and not some busybody, whether or not the service provider exercises its right to enforce the terms in any particular circumstances.

Look at it this way. You can have a general rule in your house that says "Nobody is allowed to wear a red shirt in my house, and I can enforce this rule in my discretion." Now, your best friend shows up wearing a red shirt. Are you going to kick him out because some stranger on the sidewalk is shouting "Hey, that guy is wearing a red shirt, you need to kick him out."

No, you aren't. It's up to you whether to enforce your own red shirt rule. And the only time you are going to care is if a bunch of people from the local 'red shirt gang' show up at your place and you want to kick them out.

But seriously Keith. How many people and how much money do you think Twitter is going to pay in order to find out whether people are selling handles and then doing what? Twitter is only going to care about a rule like that if it impacts them in some way, such as people getting into bad deals and then crying to Twitter or going to court to try to force Twitter to enforce their deals. No, Twitter isn't going to do that. The rule gives them the ability to say "f--- off" if people come crying to them, or drag them into a lawsuit, over a deal gone bad. But the idea that Twitter gives a flying frog's fart whether two people sell a domain name, and are going to spend all day investigating that, is just silly.

I'm not kidding, though. Whenever I see a "no loitering" sign, I just HAVE to loiter there for at least a little while, just to be a badass.

that is kinda funny, that they hunt you down for years over a bank robbery, but not loitering or library books. A crime is a crime, but there are unmentioned levels.

 

[cooljub]

Here, look at me. I'm a lawyer, breaking the law! Report me to the authorities:

I loitered there for a while. I admit it.

Dear Mr. Hillberry,

Thank you for the photograph you submitted along with the statement "I loitered there for a while. I admit it."
However upon considering your case, without further evidence, I have reservations about whether we can prove definitively that this was a loiter.

The photograph is a still pic, and could have been taken the very second you parked your bicycle, or mounted it to ride away. Furthermore, your statement could be considered anecdotal evidence, and might have been made under duress.

In order for us to nail this sucker assist you further in your case against yourself, we will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this actually constitutes a loiter. Therefore we will require video evidence to show that you did indeed exceed the loitering threshold, which in Gap, PA is 42 seconds.

Yours Sincerely,
Claybar Sourpear

---

Specialists in Running, Heavy Petting, and Loitering Law - Call today!

 

[jberryhill]

You raise a good point, counselor Sourpear.

How about a federal crime instead?

I went camping at Catoctin Mountain Park a while back. It is a federal park which is adjacent to Camp David on Catoctin Mountain in Maryland. As usual I took my bike for a ride down and back up the mountain. I also shot some video.

On review of the video, I found that I had passed a federal "no photography" zone near the entrance to Camp David:

I'm pretty sure that a photograph of a "no photography" sign at a federal facility has to be pretty solid evidence.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Just buy an entity that owns a handle
Problem solved.

 

[.X.]

I have seen no sign of worry from the wealthiest human in the world, Musk knows what he is doing, obviously. or he wouldn't be the wealthiest human in the world. Haters will Hate, Carry On