Elon f*cks Twitter

Free

When The Onion asks, I answer.
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
32,560
Location
Moonbase Caligula
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565
I'm glad to see all the socmed apps are on a downward trend. I wonder what's picking up the slack. AI chat bots?
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Isabeau

Noodles

☑️
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,461
Location
Illinois
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
04-28-2010
SLU Posts
6947
I have not regularly read PA in a while but this comic is so perfect.

 

Free

When The Onion asks, I answer.
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
32,560
Location
Moonbase Caligula
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565

Free

When The Onion asks, I answer.
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
32,560
Location
Moonbase Caligula
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565
"I wouldn't buy that for a dollar!"

Elon Musk confirmed Monday that X (formerly Twitter) plans to start charging new users to post on the platform, TechCrunch reported.

"Unfortunately, a small fee for new user write access is the only way to curb the relentless onslaught of bots," Musk wrote on X.

In October, X confirmed that it was testing whether users would pay a small annual fee to access the platform by suddenly charging new users in New Zealand and the Philippines $1. Paying the fee enabled new users in those countries to post, reply, like, and bookmark X posts.
That test was deemed the "Not-A-Bot" program, and it's unclear how successful it was at stopping bots. But X deciding to expand the program seems to suggest that the test must have had some success.
"Not-A-Bot" - Sure does sound like a Musk naming.
 

Free

When The Onion asks, I answer.
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
32,560
Location
Moonbase Caligula
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565

Bartholomew Gallacher

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
5,211
SL Rez
2002
Musk still must get pre-approvement on Twitter for all tweets reg. Tesla by a lawyver, otherwise he'll face a fine. He's not happy about it, tried to get out of the agreement, and failed.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear Elon Musk's bid to throw out part of a securities fraud settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission restricting the billionaire businessman's public statements about his electric car company Tesla (TSLA.O)
The justices turned away Musk's appeal of a lower court's decision upholding the 2018 settlement reached after he said on social media that he had "funding secured" to take Tesla private - a statement the SEC in a legal action called false and misleading.

Musk's settlement resolved the SEC lawsuit accusing him of defrauding investors. Under the agreement, Musk and Tesla each paid $20 million fines and he gave up his role as the company's chairman. Musk also agreed to let a Tesla lawyer pre-approve some posts he made on the social media platform then called Twitter before Musk bought the company and renamed it X.
Musk later sought to terminate the pre-approval mandate, with his lawyers in a court filing calling it a "government-imposed muzzle" that amounted to an illegal prior restraint on his speech.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman in Manhattan in 2022 rejected Musk's request. A three-judge panel of the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit of Appeals in 2023 upheld that decision.
The 2nd Circuit said Musk chose to allow screening of his Twitter posts, and had no right to revisit the matter "because he has now changed his mind." The 2nd Circuit last year denied Musk's request to rehear the case, prompting his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Musk's lawyers argued that the SEC had no right to impose, as a condition of settling, a "gag rule" that they contend violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment constraints on governmental limits on free speech.

 

Free

When The Onion asks, I answer.
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
32,560
Location
Moonbase Caligula
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565
A US district judge William Alsup has dismissed Elon Musk's X Corp's lawsuit against Bright Data, a data-scraping company accused of improperly accessing X (formerly Twitter) systems and violating both X terms and state laws when scraping and selling data.

X sued Bright Data to stop the company from scraping and selling X data to academic institutes and businesses, including Fortune 500 companies.

According to Alsup, X failed to state a claim while arguing that companies like Bright Data should have to pay X to access public data posted by X users.
"To the extent the claims are based on access to systems, they fail because X Corp. has alleged no more than threadbare recitals," parroting laws and findings in other cases without providing any supporting evidence, Alsup wrote. "To the extent the claims are based on scraping and selling of data, they fail because they are preempted by federal law," specifically standing as an "obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of" the Copyright Act.
 
  • 1lolwut?
Reactions: Govi

Govi

Crazy woman yells at clouds
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,348
Location
North of Surf City
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
27.05.2009
SLU Posts
5294

Free

When The Onion asks, I answer.
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
32,560
Location
Moonbase Caligula
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565
If anyone understands what the heck the court means, please explain it to me. I take it to mean that Musko's legal team did not make a case worthy of the court's attention. Yes?
Basically, that their claims of copyright are unfounded, and that Bright Data, the company doing the data scraping which X (and Musk) were going after, were acting legally.