Why would the bank give you your money, its their business and you gave it to them.
Comment on Elon Musk and company take @x handle from its original user. He got zero dollars for it.
anteaters@feddit.de 11 months ago
Yeah why would they pay the “owner”? It’s their platform they do whatever they want. What a dumb thing to complain about.
CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
anteaters@feddit.de 11 months ago
Contrary to Twitter banking is regulated and governed by actual laws. It’s a completely different beast. Go ahead and google who the owner of the money in your account is and how that is regulated.
CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Its literally regulated as well, a account in general cant just be taken…
AlataOrange@lemmy.world 11 months ago
You might have dropped this (◠‿・)—“,”
apollo440@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Not defending the Musk here, but literally it’s not your money anymore as soon as you put it in a bank account.
The money you put in your account belongs to the bank, and the account functions as an I.O.U… A very privileged one compared to other debts, and in most cases redeemable without notice, but you’re just another creditor.
Nobug404@geddit.social 11 months ago
That’s not how banks work.
Chalky_Pockets@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Former banker here. You’re just fucking wrong about that. You’ve said zero true things.
gamer@lemm.ee 11 months ago
If by “money” you mean the physical dollar bills you put in the ATM, then yes.
TerryMathews@lemmy.world 11 months ago
You got downvoted to hell, but you’re absolutely right. The fact that FDIC exists should be evidence enough to anyone with a functional brain that depositors in a bank are creditors and do not retain ownership of their literal deposit.
apollo440@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I wonder what other arrangement it could even possibly constitute.
Bailment? That would mean physically locking the bills that you deposit in a safe that you rent, which is possible I guess, but not what we’re talking about here. Trust? This would mean the deposit does not go on the bank’s books, and they cannot use it for their own purposes. This is clearly not the case, at the very least since investment banks and savings banks were merged. Agency? That would mean the bank uses your money to enact transactions on your behalf, again, clearly not the case.
That leaves the only other form of “I give you money and you give it back later”, name debt.
CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
That absolutely not how shit works.
hoodatninja@kbin.social 11 months ago
It’s their platform they do whatever they want.
Yes.
What a dumb thing to complain about.
I mean if I had a social media account just taken from me without warning or recourse I'd at the very least be irritated. How about you give me your account password and just let me take over? You can just go make a new one.
anteaters@feddit.de 11 months ago
The “dumb thing” to complain about is that they did not pay him any money. It’s a dick move that they took it but I don’t get why anyone would think they would buy it off the “owner”. He was offered some gestures and apparently expected them to want or take it.
hoodatninja@kbin.social 11 months ago
The “dumb thing” to complain about is that they did not pay him any money.
They'd pay a celebrity for it. Why should we be any different?
It’s a dick move
Yes that's literally what everyone is saying. We aren't asserting "rights" on twitter or something.
anteaters@feddit.de 11 months ago
Because a celebrity has clout to make a big stink of it. The headline isn’t only “Mean twitter took account from user!” but contains “He got zero dollars for it.” as if he was entitled to that in any way.
Yes that’s literally what everyone is saying. We aren’t asserting “rights” on twitter or something.
I believe that too, but look at the replies - there are people who literally believe they own their account or compare it to personal property or their bank accounts.
howrar@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
No one is owed anything, but not compensating the original owner further erodes what little trust was left in the company. You wouldn’t want to spend resources building a brand on a platform where your name can suddenly get snatched away at some billionaire’s whim.
anteaters@feddit.de 11 months ago
Absolutely true. But apparently the headlines for this event are all “he got no money for it!”
MsPenguinette@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Up until it was taken from him, he would have been able to sell it for a shit tonne of money. I think it’s easy to understand why it was shitty of Twitter yo just snatch it
over_clox@lemmy.world 11 months ago
So what you’re saying is you approve of identity theft. Gotcha.
anteaters@feddit.de 11 months ago
Interpreting this as me approving of Musk’s action is just even more retarded than buying Twitter and renaming it to X.
over_clox@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Interpreting your words just shows how much you don’t give a shit that someone lost their username and account because some dumb rich prick likes the letter X.
You’d be whistling a different tune if it was your username.
anteaters@feddit.de 11 months ago
Yeah you are reading into my post whatever you want to read. I was always talking about them complaining “He got zero dollards for it.” as if he was in any way entitled to that. I’m sure it sucks for the user that Twitter just took the account but I really don’t give a crap about the Twitter shitshow.
pjhenry1216@kbin.social 11 months ago
Because there's precedent that handles have value (on the order of thousands of USD). They're taking value from a customer. It'd be interesting to see what swag they offered in exchange, but considering the guy's net worth, he could have afforded some decency. I mean, Gmail can just take your email address to, but it is how many identify themselves in business, so it can harm them financially. Sure, that's the risk with doing that, but it is what it is. Musk could have generated some good will but instead generated more bad publicity. I'm beginning to think he has no PR on staff or just surrounds himself with people who never say no.
anteaters@feddit.de 11 months ago
Is there a precedent for Twitter buying an account “back” from a user? IIRC all deals regarding Twitter accounts have been made between users.
pjhenry1216@kbin.social 11 months ago
The precedent is that the handle has value. It's a bad look when a company destroys value for a user, regardless of whether they have the right to or not. The internet is full of people complaining when Google shuts down a YouTube channel. It's essentially the same thing. You expect a good reason or exchange to occur to make the customer whole.
I don't understand where your confusion lies. The guy got screwed over for being a loyal user of the service, despite Musk not owning it for that whole duration.
The guy was offered swag, but I couldn't find details of what it was. And as far as I can tell, this isn't really decrying the lack of money. Just how they handled the situation as a whole.
You understand how it's an asshole move, but don't understand why someone would expect some compensation for the dick move? When someone gives their spouse some roses because they acted like an ass, are you confused by the roses?
Little8Lost@feddit.de 11 months ago
the main problem with this is that with them doing it without asking or time to prepare all the people the guy knew where lost or have a problem finding him.
And the huy was seemingly not even a nobody but instead had a company so even more company contacts could get lost or customers wanting to directly reach out to him could sent private data to a 3 party (twitter) about confidential informations.Secondly it says that the company can and will take over accounts when they have some reason, even if it is only the name.
That means the trust in the handle gets completly broken because it could be a twitter account in just a few seconds without warning.
So they have the power to take over an official governement or news account without warning and only leaving a reason. This is theoretical but if there is a news station with a handle like “xnews” i can really expect that it gets taken over in some time in the future.anteaters@feddit.de 11 months ago
I agree with all of this. I just think it’s idiotic to complain that they didn’t pay him. Twitter handles are not “owned” by the user and the platform can and will do with them whatever they like at any time.
demonsword@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s their platform they do whatever they want
Their platform only has value because people use it. Mistreat your users, they go elsewhere and suddenly your platform becomes worthless.
digdug@kbin.social 11 months ago
Why do you assume that complaining is the same as saying Twitter isn't allowed to do this? I can still think it's shitty without thinking they aren't allowed to do it.
anteaters@feddit.de 11 months ago
I think it’s dumb to go “He got zero dollars for it.” as it sounds like he was owed anything. I also feel that it creates confusion with people being paid for a TLD they owned (or “squatted” on) which is something very different from having a Twitter handle. But apparently that’s just me.
papertowels@lemmy.one 11 months ago
They certainly can do whatever they want, but folks are still able to call musk out for being a bully.
It’s the same reasoning behind folks confusing freedom of speech with freedom from consequences of their speech.
LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 11 months ago
TIL if anyone carries anything valuable onto my property, it entitles me to take it from them
My property, my rules /s
anteaters@feddit.de 11 months ago
TIL the original user of the “@x” account owned it and brought it to Twitter who than took it from him.
LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 11 months ago
Bingo
anteaters@feddit.de 11 months ago
You might be surprised to learn that you do in fact not “own” your Twitter handle and Twitter is not required to buy it off of you if they want it.
sndmn@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
What an even dumb comment.
ghariksforge@lemmy.world 11 months ago
There is this thing called decency. You might have heard of it.
anteaters@feddit.de 11 months ago
Yeah they even offered him some bullshit as compensation that they were not required to. Don’t expect decency from a huge company like Twitter.
Decoy321@lemmy.world 11 months ago
But we should.
Because that would be the decent thing to do.
anteaters@feddit.de 11 months ago
Yeah we should totally expect decency from the social platform filled with Nazis that is run by a billionaire edgelord catering to them.
Q63x@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I like how we all like to pretend that these companies are not run by people. Company is not being an asshole people who were in charge of this transition were.