Gene X Hwang owned @x on Twitter. Until Elon Musk rebranded the platform and took the handle.
Gene X Hwang knew his days on Twitter as @x were numbered.
“Elon had been kind of tweeting about X previously,” Hwang said. “So I kind of knew, you know, I had an inkling that this was going to happen. I didn’t really know when.”
Since 2007, Hwang’s username on the site was @x — but after Elon Musk renamed the social media platform to X earlier this week, it was only a matter of time before the company commandeered the handle.
The news came shortly after Hwang had competed in a pinball tournament in Canada.
"So when I landed and fired up my phone, I just got all these messages and I was like: ‘What is what is going on?’ "
Hwang received an email from the company explaining that his account data would be preserved, and he’d get a new handle. It offered Hwang merchandise, a tour of its offices and a meeting with company management as compensation.
Hwang’s account is one of the latest casualties in the chaos following Musk’s takeover of the social media company. On Monday, Twitter’s iconic blue bird logo was replaced with the letter “X.”
The rebrand is the company’s next step in creating what Musk has called “the everything app.” Musk and CEO Linda Yaccarino envision the platform becoming a U.S. parallel to WeChat — a hub for communication, banking and commerce that’s become a part of everyday life in China.
But experts are skeptical X will be able to become an “everything app.”
“I’m not sure he has enough trust from his user base to get people to actually exchange money or attach any type of financial institution to his app,” Jennifer Grygiel, a professor at Syracuse University, told NPR.
Hwang is among those who have been looking for Twitter alternatives.
“I’ve been checking out, you know, other options like Threads and Mastodon and Bluesky,” he said. “I’m still on Twitter for now, but … it’s changed a lot. So we’ll see how much longer I’m on there.”
Copyright 2023 NPR. To see more, visit NPR.
I just don’t understand where this expectation that accounts are owned are coming from. There’s no language anywhere in the signup that implies this, nor is it the case for any other website. I don’t know where this expectation is coming from.
If you’re playing a game of pick-up basketball, and your team is in the lead, and some guy on the other team says “Nevermind, I don’t want to lose. Give me my ball, I going home.” I’m curious how you would react. He owned the ball, and you signed no contract at the start of the game, so, what’s your take on his action?
Okay, I know at this point I’m not going to change your mind, but since I can’t rule out that you truly don’t understand how my basketball analogy relates to the Twitter action, here’s my best attempt at an explanation
In Twitter’s actions:
Ownership: Twitter owns the platform and has control over usernames, similar to how the person with the basketball owns the ball in the game.
Unfair action: Twitter took over a specific username without any prior warning or valid reason. This can be seen as an unfair move, as it disregards the user who previously claimed the username.
Moral implication: Just because twitter has the technical power and legal authority to control usernames doesn’t necessarily mean it is morally acceptable to take away a username from someone else arbitrarily. It’s a dick move because it shows a lack of consideration for the user who may have had an attachment to that username.
In the basketball analogy:
Ownership: The person who brought the basketball to the game owns the ball, just like Twitter owns the platform.
Unfair action: If the person who owns the ball suddenly decides to cancel the game and leave when their team is losing, it would be seen as an unfair and unsportsmanlike action.
Moral implication: Although the person has the right to take their ball and leave since they own it, doing so without warning and when their team is losing disregards the other players’ interests and ruins the fun for everyone else. It shows a lack of consideration for the fairness and enjoyment of the participants.
In both cases, the common thread is the concept of fairness and respect for others. Just because someone owns something (be a basketball or Twitter) doesn’t give them a free pass to act in an insensitive or inconsiderate manner. In a moral context, it’s important to consider the impact of one’s actions on others and to treat them with fairness and empathy, even if you have the right to do otherwise. Both situations address the significance of ethical behavior and being mindful of how our actions affect others, even when we have certain ownership rights.
It’s that people put time into their accounts and into the service. Those accounts create content and are the reason the service can make money. The social contract created is in part because users are the product of a lot of services. So the users feel like if they are the product they are entitled (somewhat rightfully) to simply have a reliable service that doesn’t change without notice. Again, this is a social contract, not a legal or written one.
It’s like in the playground. If you are building a sandcastle in the sandpit and someone comes and knocks it over. It’s not illegal. There was no written contract that said you owned that sand. In fact, it’s the opposite, that sand is provided for everyone to share. It doesn’t matter who knocked over your sandcastle, that person is still a jerk. Even if it was the owner of the sandpit. You spent time creating and forming something. That work is something you are entitled to. Yet someone takes it away without even a warning. Is that ethical? Is that okay? Can I just knock over your sandcastle without recourse just because I own the sand? I did say you could use it and there was a social contract created that you would use the sand and I would let you. I am technically still letting you use the sand but I am taking or destroying the work you put into building that sandcastle.
So really the question is, if I provide the raw materials for you to borrow and you do a ton of work with those materials, do I have the right to claim your work?
if I provide the raw materials for you to borrow and you do a ton of work with those materials, do I have the right to claim your work?
You have the right to take the materials back, and it would be foolish of me to rely on you not doing so without a contract. Even more foolish, if the contract explicitly stated your right to do so. If the contract also gave you a perpetual license to use the intellectual property of whatever I did… well, you still have to recognize that I did it, but otherwise you can exploit it in any way you want.
So essentially your stance is “well whatever the contract says is the rule, and because the contract is something both parties agree to, it can’t ever be unethical.”?
another guy slips and falls, gets up and walks away
No contract, no agreeing or disagreeing, it simply happens and that’s it. You can call it unethical, unfair, unjust, whatever you want… it still happens and you don’t have a say in it.
A contract where both parties get to agree, is a make-believe luxury, you don’t get that with reality. Of course you can still call it unethical, unfair, unjust… but keep in mind the default alternative is no contract at all, or the rules of reality: whoever gets to control it, keeps it.
And that’s okay? I will genuinely never understand legalists. Just because an action is legal does not mean it’s just, and it’s incredible to me that people (and not even a small number of people, but a large portion of society) think that way.
Where did I say it’s “just”? It’s “as okay as we’ve managed to make it”, which keep in mind is far more okay than what happens without any laws at all. Having an “Agree” button with a contract, is a luxury we’ve got to through ages of spilt blood.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
I just don’t understand where this expectation that accounts are owned are coming from. There’s no language anywhere in the signup that implies this, nor is it the case for any other website. I don’t know where this expectation is coming from.
If you’re playing a game of pick-up basketball, and your team is in the lead, and some guy on the other team says “Nevermind, I don’t want to lose. Give me my ball, I going home.” I’m curious how you would react. He owned the ball, and you signed no contract at the start of the game, so, what’s your take on his action?
That metaphor makes no sense here
Dang, I thought you could do better than that 😄
what are you even talking about
Okay, I know at this point I’m not going to change your mind, but since I can’t rule out that you truly don’t understand how my basketball analogy relates to the Twitter action, here’s my best attempt at an explanation
In Twitter’s actions:
Ownership: Twitter owns the platform and has control over usernames, similar to how the person with the basketball owns the ball in the game.
Unfair action: Twitter took over a specific username without any prior warning or valid reason. This can be seen as an unfair move, as it disregards the user who previously claimed the username.
Moral implication: Just because twitter has the technical power and legal authority to control usernames doesn’t necessarily mean it is morally acceptable to take away a username from someone else arbitrarily. It’s a dick move because it shows a lack of consideration for the user who may have had an attachment to that username.
In the basketball analogy:
Ownership: The person who brought the basketball to the game owns the ball, just like Twitter owns the platform.
Unfair action: If the person who owns the ball suddenly decides to cancel the game and leave when their team is losing, it would be seen as an unfair and unsportsmanlike action.
Moral implication: Although the person has the right to take their ball and leave since they own it, doing so without warning and when their team is losing disregards the other players’ interests and ruins the fun for everyone else. It shows a lack of consideration for the fairness and enjoyment of the participants.
In both cases, the common thread is the concept of fairness and respect for others. Just because someone owns something (be a basketball or Twitter) doesn’t give them a free pass to act in an insensitive or inconsiderate manner. In a moral context, it’s important to consider the impact of one’s actions on others and to treat them with fairness and empathy, even if you have the right to do otherwise. Both situations address the significance of ethical behavior and being mindful of how our actions affect others, even when we have certain ownership rights.
It’s literally a very similar situation. Morality does not equal legality. In fact, they’re rather opposite a good portion of the time.
It’s that people put time into their accounts and into the service. Those accounts create content and are the reason the service can make money. The social contract created is in part because users are the product of a lot of services. So the users feel like if they are the product they are entitled (somewhat rightfully) to simply have a reliable service that doesn’t change without notice. Again, this is a social contract, not a legal or written one.
It’s like in the playground. If you are building a sandcastle in the sandpit and someone comes and knocks it over. It’s not illegal. There was no written contract that said you owned that sand. In fact, it’s the opposite, that sand is provided for everyone to share. It doesn’t matter who knocked over your sandcastle, that person is still a jerk. Even if it was the owner of the sandpit. You spent time creating and forming something. That work is something you are entitled to. Yet someone takes it away without even a warning. Is that ethical? Is that okay? Can I just knock over your sandcastle without recourse just because I own the sand? I did say you could use it and there was a social contract created that you would use the sand and I would let you. I am technically still letting you use the sand but I am taking or destroying the work you put into building that sandcastle.
So really the question is, if I provide the raw materials for you to borrow and you do a ton of work with those materials, do I have the right to claim your work?
You have the right to take the materials back, and it would be foolish of me to rely on you not doing so without a contract. Even more foolish, if the contract explicitly stated your right to do so. If the contract also gave you a perpetual license to use the intellectual property of whatever I did… well, you still have to recognize that I did it, but otherwise you can exploit it in any way you want.
So essentially your stance is “well whatever the contract says is the rule, and because the contract is something both parties agree to, it can’t ever be unethical.”?
No, my stance is “reality is the rule”:
No contract, no agreeing or disagreeing, it simply happens and that’s it. You can call it unethical, unfair, unjust, whatever you want… it still happens and you don’t have a say in it.
A contract where both parties get to agree, is a make-believe luxury, you don’t get that with reality. Of course you can still call it unethical, unfair, unjust… but keep in mind the default alternative is no contract at all, or the rules of reality: whoever gets to control it, keeps it.
And that’s okay? I will genuinely never understand legalists. Just because an action is legal does not mean it’s just, and it’s incredible to me that people (and not even a small number of people, but a large portion of society) think that way.
Where did I say it’s “just”? It’s “as okay as we’ve managed to make it”, which keep in mind is far more okay than what happens without any laws at all. Having an “Agree” button with a contract, is a luxury we’ve got to through ages of spilt blood.