𝕏 / Twitter / X, the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter / "MUSK OWNS TWITTER"

[Jack Awful]

I don't even understand why a WEBSITE, which ultimately renders in HTML and CSS and Javascript, needs an "app" in the first place rather than a browser.

Am I old?

Or too young.

 

[AnOminous]

They will likely win this case too as they have already proven they aren't breaking anti-trust laws to the courts.

The entire case they won is currently on appeal. It's at least a couple years out before they can say they've fully won. Do you seriously think winning a single case means you have been automatically ruled to be immune from suit over anything remotely similar in the future? Because that's retarded. It's only res judicata with reference to Epic and only with reference to the issue actually litigated.

It doesn't mean you automatically win every time in the future, just like Gotti winning a RICO action didn't mean he was immune the next time he got prosecuted.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Of course not, but it does set precedent and time and time again Apple has won these anti-trust lawsuits.

Counterpoint: Korea has ruled that Apple and Google have to decouple payments from their app stores, allowing alternative payment providers for in-app purchases, because the exclusive control of those payments is seen as anti-competitive. The EU is moving in the same direction (slowly, like it always does), so I would expect the US to start moving in that direction as well, sooner or later.

As an aside, the "private company" line is serious bullshit. A private company, publicly traded or otherwise, cannot just do whatever it likes, no matter how much a bunch of suddenly-libertarians insist otherwise. They are governed by endless rules and regulations that limit their activities in a variety of ways. It's only money that lets them get away with ignoring their duties and responsibilities, but that doesn't mean what they do is legal, or even right.

Companies like Apple are essentially the modern enclosers of the commons, taking virtual spaces that were previously free for all and turning them into closed and heavily-curated gardens. A phone is just a handheld computer. Who the fuck is Apple or Google to tell me what I can and cannot install on it?

 

[SilenceIsViolence]

As Ominous said, you cannot simply do whatever you want whenever you want in a business just because its not criminal. Same reason the mass twitter shitcannings have lead to lawsuits and mass golden parachutes to stump said lawsuits.

Am I smoking crack here? Yes, a company can do whatever they want whenever they want as long as they follow the law. Worker protection laws prevent twitter from mass layoffs without appropriate notice, which how lawyers are arguing that twitter violated the law. They offered compensation packages to avoid violating said laws. How do you reconcile " you cannot simply do whatever you want whenever you want in a business just because its not criminal" and the twitter firing when the compensation packages were given expressly to prevent breaking the law, because otherwise it would be criminal?

I am really trying to understand this "can't do whatever they want if there's no laws around it" thing but I can't make sense of it.

Counterpoint: Korea has ruled that Apple and Google have to decouple payments from their app stores, allowing alternative payment providers for in-app purchases, because the exclusive control of those payments is seen as anti-competitive. The EU is moving in the same direction (slowly, like it always does), so I would expect the US to start moving in that direction as well, sooner or later.

Sure. When there are laws that prevent this from happening in the US, then it will matter. Until then, Apple can proceed to do as they like within the limits of the law.

As an aside, the "private company" line is serious bullshit. A private company, publicly traded or otherwise, cannot just do whatever it likes, no matter how much a bunch of suddenly-libertarians insist otherwise. They are governed by endless rules and regulations that limit their activities in a variety of ways. It's only money that lets them get away with ignoring their duties and responsibilities, but that doesn't mean what they do is legal, or even right.

They can as long as it does not violate the law. I am struggling to understand why this is so hard to grasp. My point has been they can remove apps from their app store for any reason, which is something expressly written in their app store contracts. It's the same reason KiwiFarms is able to removed from places even if they didn't violate any of their ToS - at the end of the day, the company has the final say in what they will and will not allow as long as it's within the law (cannot ban KF because Null is white, but they can because they claim it breaks their ToS, which are already subjective).

Companies like Apple are essentially the modern enclosers of the commons, taking virtual spaces that were previously free for all and turning them into closed and heavily-curated gardens. A phone is just a handheld computer. Who the fuck is Apple or Google to tell me what I can and cannot install on it?

Apple sells a walled garden experience, it's one of their main selling points. Their claims of control are under the guise of wanting to provide a tailored experience to it's users, which is how they get away with it. To Apple, their phone is not just a 'hand held computer' it's an entry point to their ecosystem which they want to meticulously control.

The entire case they won is currently on appeal. It's at least a couple years out before they can say they've fully won.

I consneed that you are correct, the entire case is in appeal - I was under the impression it was just the case around alternative transaction avenues and not the anti-trust as well.

Do you seriously think winning a single case means you have been automatically ruled to be immune from suit over anything remotely similar in the future? Because that's retarded. It's only res judicata with reference to Epic and only with reference to the issue actually litigated.

It doesn't mean you automatically win every time in the future, just like Gotti winning a RICO action didn't mean he was immune the next time he got prosecuted.

No, I don't, but it does make the next case much harder to prove. Precedent is foundational to law, it's why when cases are being fought they will reference a dozen other cases with similar parameters to help build their case, defense or prosecution. Of course it isn't an automatic W next time, but it is a much easier W when you have past cases that covered similar ground.

 

[AnOminous]

I am really trying to understand this "can't do whatever they want if there's no laws around it" thing but I can't make sense of it.

Except I've been pretty specific what law I think is being violated, and don't think that a single win on the same law in another case makes them magically immune permanently no matter what they do now or in the future.

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

I am really trying to understand this "can't do whatever they want if there's no laws around it" thing but I can't make sense of it.

I feel like your conflating "Criminal Law" as "All Law" when there's an entire, incredibly expansive field of both civil law, and also common law, the latter of which is more of "We haven't had to codify this because everyone knows its wrong and you're a special grade of retard to have forced us to address it". This is more around Civil Law, where if someone makes an action that is harmful to you financially, such as pulling your product for 'no reason' from their distribution, your allowed to fight that. Otherwise someone could just place a bunch of walking sign holders with their brand in front of any competitor, hiding their store entirely, or dumb 'play the written rule' shit like that.

When it comes to courts for Civil law, they're not just evaluating the explicit written "You cannot do X" but the intent, and the wider social gain. Thats how the Epic Vs Apple case still ended up with Epic having a smaller win in having stripped out a bunch of terms regarding how epic and others are allowed to advertise alternative payment paths, deciding that while those terms weren't illegal, they were against the common interest of the consumer.

In a twitter removal case, the question is going to heavily involve "Is the average consumer benefited by the walled garden taking away a platform that has such personal and business significance to so many consumers? Is Apple materially harmed by Twitters actions so far to a degree that exceeds what is reasonable?".

Legal works are a complicated space, there's a reason we have lawyers and weird rulings happening regularly.

 

[SilenceIsViolence]

Except I've been pretty specific what law I think is being violated, and don't think that a single win on the same law in another case makes them magically immune permanently no matter what they do now or in the future

Assuming you didn't see my response in the edit, no, I don't think it's an automatic W, but it's an easier achieved W for sure. If Koch-backed Epic couldn't make the case, I struggle to see why you are optimistic about Elon. Only time will tell for sure, but my money is solidly on Apple.

 

[Catgirls are Love]

Honestly, as much as I want Twitter to burn (and Apple to stop being jackasses) Twitter has a much better potential case against Apple than Epic ever did (assuming Twitter's legal team still exists), mostly because they haven't prepared a marketing campaign for when Apple kicks them off the app store, directly told Apple that they weren't going to be following their rules any longer and to eat shit (that we know of), then acted very surprised and outraged when Apple kicked them off for not following the rules that had been agreed to.

Still no idea if there's any truth to this; Musk could just be stirring up shit for amusement.

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

Assuming you didn't see my response in the edit, no, I don't think it's an automatic W, but it's an easier achieved W for sure. If Koch-backed Epic couldn't make the case, I struggle to see why you are optimistic about Elon. Only time will tell for sure, but my money is solidly on Apple.

I'd have to disagree with you. Fundamentally, this is Apple trying to argue their terms of service permit a removal for X violation. Musk has evidence that he hasn't done so, *or* that it has been in violation well before his fixes. Courts and Judges hate "get out of jail free" provisions in contracts that just allow a company to break off incredibly important or valuable contracts to the other party for arbitrary reasons, unless its explicitly written exactly as "We need no reason at all to break this contract". Normies can't afford to fight them or provide the evidence, but Musk can. Trying to write some "If we're offended by your CEO's behavior" clause into a contract is all but guaranteed to get thrown out by a judge in a court, because Musk tweeting spicy memes is not a material damaging factor for Apple. Same goes for any vague "content" policies, which is why Apple didn't win Epic vs Apple on those grounds - They won on the basis that app store commission is how apple makes their money on this venture, and the courts aren't interested in dictating business models, and clearly millions of people like the model. It would be unreasonable for the court to order apple to just allow competitors to use it for free and not give them a cut. Apples attempts to argue over their rule simply forbidding it were thrown aside as pointless.

If its the case that the contract has always been in breach, and they're only acting on a particular breach now, that's actually a problem for Apples Lawyers too, because it indicates to the court that the breach was not materially damaging to Apple, so much so that they didn't even realize or care for however long it was underway.

Apples main win point would be to prove a consistent, new, and significant breach of their contract terms, that only started recently, that has not and cannot be easily remedied, that is not about the existence of Elon Musk itself, but about the function of the application. They must then also argue to a reasonable doubt that the breach is damaging to their company, their app store, and represents material or reputational damages for them, which isn't the hardest hurdle but would still be a battle.

Musks main wins to stay on would focus around unfair, inadequate, invalid, or contradictory rules, application of rules, or content of the rules or contracts that are being used to justify their removal. Essentially, try to pass the reasonable doubt stage for "These rules are stupid, unenforced, and only used as a weapon, not a policy". There's lesser opportunity around best social interest, which is likely to be a big talking point but not enough to win on its own.

Its a fun thing to shitpost about, and I do think Musk has the stronger argument with what we currently know, but its also unlikely to happen.

Why is it unlikely to happen? Apple has much bigger problems brewing in their supply chain right now, the last thing they need is for the iPhone to develop a reputation for being censorious, removing popular apps, and not even being able to buy one, right now. Not with Foxconn in disarray and unlikely to sort its shit out until the end of the fiscal year.

 

[AnOminous]

Thats how the Epic Vs Apple case still ended up with Epic having a smaller win in having stripped out a bunch of terms regarding how epic and others are allowed to advertise alternative payment paths, deciding that while those terms weren't illegal, they were against the common interest of the consumer.

Ironically, at least as it stands, while other people have benefited from that minor victory of Epic, they still owe Apple, having lost their more substantial claims.

Apple also cut their 30% share to 15% for at least some of their vendors, possibly fearing they might not fare as well against a better situated plaintiff.

Why is it unlikely to happen? Apple has much bigger problems brewing in their supply chain right now, the last thing they need is for the iPhone to develop a reputation for being censorious, removing popular apps, and not even being able to buy one, right now. Not with Foxconn in disarray and unlikely to sort its shit out until the end of the fiscal year.

And that's why Musk might very well want to throw yet another disincentive onto the pile and pursue litigation. Even if it is if dubious merit, the cost and PR of it will still be substantial. It's also not as if Musk cares particularly what he looks like.

 

[apolloday]

Caesar is threatening to take the circus away from the plebs to own the patrician who stepped out of line.
I'm sure that will not backfire at all... Not that they'll actually do it.

Also it's funny how people become so liberal (classical meaning) when corporations threaten to ban people and say "they can do what they want, it's their platform!". Are we really pretending that Twitter and other social media sites don't have anything to do with freedom of expression, and that the protections for it only extend to things that are literally observable on your person? Hey, as long as you're consistent with that. Good luck!

 

[autistic dog]

Another factor to consider is if apple removes Twitter and android does not follow suit. It could backfire on them especially since all the apple faggots will continue to use Twitter just thru their browsers.

 

[AnOminous]

Another factor to consider is if apple removes Twitter and android does not follow suit. It could backfire on them especially since all the apple faggots will continue to use Twitter just thru their browsers.

There isn't really a king of Android that can block it on everyone's phone. Obviously Google is the big player but there are ungoogled Android phones too.

 

[TitusOvid]

Who needs the app? I only visit twitter thru browsers.

 

[TheNazgulKing]

Also it's funny how people become so liberal (classical meaning) when corporations threaten to ban people and say "they can do what they want, it's their platform!". Are we really pretending that Twitter and other social media sites don't have anything to do with freedom of expression, and that the protections for it only extend to things that are literally observable on your person? Hey, as long as you're consistent with that. Good luck!

More precisely, people are classical liberals when Twitter and other social media sites ban their opponents. ("Don't like it? Build your own platform.") When these sites start banning people supportive of their cause, social media becomes a village commons where their free speech must be protected.

 

[SilenceIsViolence]

I'd have to disagree with you. Fundamentally, this is Apple trying to argue their terms of service permit a removal for X violation. Musk has evidence that he hasn't done so, *or* that it has been in violation well before his fixes. Courts and Judges hate "get out of jail free" provisions in contracts that just allow a company to break off incredibly important or valuable contracts to the other party for arbitrary reasons, unless its explicitly written exactly as "We need no reason at all to break this contract".

What contract do you think Apple and Twitter have together?

As far as I understand, Twitter signs a 'contract' with Apple saying "we'll follow the rules, let our app be downloaded". Apple goes "okay, and we take 30% of any IAPs" they shake, the app goes though a (horrific, terrible, ask-me-how-I-know) app approval process and then, with luck, your app is now available on the store. In the fine print of this agreement it says "Apple retains the right to remove any app from the app store for these reasons" and lists their extensive ToS.

Now, Elon takes over twitter. There is an immediate and measurable rise in hate speech and impersonations (boosted by MSM), advertises pull out, and Apple threatens to "withhold" the twitter app (purposely vague wording, either from Elon or Apple). Apple has anti-bulling and anti-hate speech rulings in their ToS and there's been a measurable rise. Is that now the majority of content? They'd have to prove it, but there's not shortage of troons who will make that data apparent. If anything, Apple can argue they are taking a bigger loss here as they would be removing one of their top 10 apps and all of the revenue that comes with it, while their phones only account for 30% of smartphones and certainly <50% of twitter users.

Look at Apple's License agreement

https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/terms/apple-developer-program/Apple-Developer-Program-License-Agreement-20220606-English.pdf

Apple reserves the right to change, suspend, deprecate, deny, limit, or disable access to the Apple Services, or any part thereof, at any time without notice (including but not limited to revoking entitlements or changing any APIs in the Apple Software that enable access to the Services or not providing You with an entitlement). In no event will Apple be liable for the removal of or disabling of access to any of the foregoing. Apple may also impose limits and restrictions on the use of or access to the Apple Services, may remove the Apple Services for indefinite time periods, may revoke Your access to the Apple Services, or may cancel the Apple Services (or any part thereof) at any time without notice or liability to You and in its sole discretion.

I get that you're arguing that this can be challenged, and that there needs to be events that law is formed upon when in uncharted territory. But it's not a winning argument when all of this is stacked against Twitter. As I said in my original post, I'd love to be wrong, but it all sounds like optimistic cope to think Elon is going to take a W here.

 

[AnOminous]

As I said in my original post, I'd love to be wrong, but it all sounds like optimistic cope to think Elon is going to take a W here.

He doesn't have to to make it very painful and expensive for them.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

I think the biggest reason Apple will shut the fuck up is because of the discovery that would go along with a case like this. Every faggoty little bitch company e-mail that ever went out with Musk or Twitter in it would have to come out. Now Apple could probably hide a lot of that shit, but I really wouldn't want to pit Elon's cyber-forensics guys versus mine, especially if my guys were diversity-hire Apple grade fart huffers. Just one time where Musk could show that Apple deleted something after being told not to, and blam, Apple just both committed spoliation AND wrote an e-mail about how they didn't want to do business with Elon because he is African-American.

That kind of shit didn't exist with Epic because they were ideological allies (read: faggots)..

Also, do you guys not think that verified Apple employees ever tweeted anything back when Twitter was working for the "right side of history" crowd? Who owns that data now. Who doesn't want it to come to light. Hell, Elon could just dump it all and let us and 4chan find all the good shit and wouldn't even have to pay lawyers for it.

Now hopefully Apple is too stupid to realize all of this and boots Twitter off the app store, but I got to think they still have at least one guy there with power that knows it's probably a bad idea to poke the armed lunatic.

 

[Alligator Alcatraz]

I don't even understand why a WEBSITE, which ultimately renders in HTML and CSS and Javascript, needs an "app" in the first place rather than a browser.

Am I old?

It's a social media platform with private messaging. The app is required for notifications. The website cannot push notifications from mobile browsers because it introduces security issues.

Speaking of security issues!

5.4 million Twitter users' stolen data leaked online — more shared privately

Over 5.4 million Twitter user records containing non-public information stolen using an API vulnerability fixed in January have been shared for free on a hacker forum. Another massive, potentially more significant, data dump of millions of Twitter records has also been disclosed by a security...

www.bleepingcomputer.com

5.4 million Twitter users' stolen data leaked online — more shared pr…

archived 28 Nov 2022 08:48:37 UTC

archive.ph

on November 24th, the 5.4 million Twitter records have now been shared for free on a hacking forum.

Pompompurin has confirmed to BleepingComputer that this is the same data that was for sale in August, and includes 5,485,635 Twitter user records.

These records contain either

• a private email address or phone number, and public scraped data,
• including the account's Twitter ID,
• name,
• screen name,
• verified status,
• location,
• URL,
• description,
• follower count,
• account creation date,
• friends count,
• favorites count,
• statuses count, and
• profile image URLs.

...
The news of this more significant data breach comes from security expert Chad Loder, who first broke the news on Twitter and was suspended soon after posting. Loder subsequently posted a redacted sample of this larger data breach on Mastodon.

...
Pompompurin also confirmed with BleepingComputer that they were not responsible and did not know who created this newly discovered data dump, indicating that other people were using this API vulnerability.

BleepingComputer has learned that this newly discovered data dump consists of numerous files broken up by country and area codes, including Europe, Israel, and the USA.
...
If you receive an email claiming your account was suspended, there are log in issues, or you are about to lose your verified status, and it prompts you to login on to a non-Twitter domain, ignore the emails and delete them as they are likely phishing attempts.

BleepingComputer reached out to Twitter on Thursday about this additional data dump of private information but has yet to receive a response.

 

[Borax Bozo]

I do wonder if Twitter is in the realm of "has a custom-written agreement with Apple" like how they have custom business agreements with other providers.