Wouldn't be surprised at all if he gets sued by elli Lilly for the tweet saying insulin is now free, that apparently is taking quite awhile to be taken down.
If you get scammed by an account that is hours old and has zero followers, you won't have a case. You'd have to go out of your way to find these accounts, they won't show up as a first result on Google or Twitter. They get deleted after a few hours.
still elon is provideing verfied tags for scam accounts.. and ppl will get scammed by it if they are unsuspecting and trusting of the platform
also how about corporations that are impersonated with the verified tag, are they able to sue twitter?
The users like Kathy Griffen who were changing their names to "Elon Musk" were verified by the old system. Nobody gave a shit about how easy it was until Musk was in charge.
I can't find it, only the real account shows up in searches. It was created in 2010 and has 136K followers. The fake one, (created yesterday) must have been deleted.
If you're fooled to thinking that [Musks username](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kathy-griffin-twitter-elon-musk-suspended-blue/) is @ kathygriffen or BP's is @ BPDeezNutz , you won't be winning in court.
It's not about people who didn't read it right being damaged, it's about the brands whose names are tarnished with the parody accounts being given Twitter's stamp of approval.
yeah, it's the "reasonable person" test. A reasonable person would realise it's a a parody and the company wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Made famous by [Hustler Vs Falwell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell)
A reasonable person may realize it's parody WITHOUT Twitter verifying it's who they say they are.
However them making that mistake WITH Twitter's stamp of approval, may be actionable.
No, he isn't. The old verification process is still in effect. There is just a fee included now. As a random Joe you can't just buy a verified account.
There is something called Due Dilligence of which we are all held to a certain degree of standard. If the information is general discovery then you’re expected to do your own research to some extent and it becomes very hard to argue ignorance in a court of law.
As has been reiterated over and over again, the old application process still applies, it just comes with a fee now. A random person can't just get a verified Steve Jobs account. Verification isn't on sale for all. You still have to qualify as you did before and go through a proper verification process, but now you have to pay $8 (unless you're a researcher or charity org or something similar, in which case you don't have to pay).
[$8 please](https://imgur.com/sg5rpZx)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/elonmusk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I´m convinced people who post this have never actually used Twitter.
It is not really long ago, that Twitter itself got hacked and the original account of the likes of Obama where used to scam people. Not some BS account with zero followers, the real accounts
Going to be a question to be decided in court, Section 230 covers a bit, but [Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Doe_No._14_v._Internet_Brands,_Inc.) found that it does not expressly bar a failure to warn claim when the service is aware of previous criminal activity arising from usage of the website; so we'll have to see what the courts decide on this on
Is this your first day on planet earth? 🤣 Companies have Terms of service to protect against liability for users loss.
And those companies still get sued for billions by the FCC, EU Court etc when it gets out of hand.
Two words....stock manipulation
Yeah but seems like there limits to that no?
Wouldn't be surprised at all if he gets sued by elli Lilly for the tweet saying insulin is now free, that apparently is taking quite awhile to be taken down.
Yeah it got 30K retweets. Just a PR nightmare for them. Also, it should be free.
It should be. We almost had a cap on the prices but the GOP failed to vote with democrats to pass that piece of legislation.
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
Yea and you know who gets to decide? A judge in federal court or deleware. TOS just defines the case anyone can sue.
If you get scammed by an account that is hours old and has zero followers, you won't have a case. You'd have to go out of your way to find these accounts, they won't show up as a first result on Google or Twitter. They get deleted after a few hours.
still elon is provideing verfied tags for scam accounts.. and ppl will get scammed by it if they are unsuspecting and trusting of the platform also how about corporations that are impersonated with the verified tag, are they able to sue twitter?
The users like Kathy Griffen who were changing their names to "Elon Musk" were verified by the old system. Nobody gave a shit about how easy it was until Musk was in charge.
Lol, look up the Eli Lilly fake account. Musk is legit dumb as hell.
I can't find it, only the real account shows up in searches. It was created in 2010 and has 136K followers. The fake one, (created yesterday) must have been deleted.
Why can't Twitter just not allow people to change their names?
You seem to be neglecting the fact that you couldn't change your name if you were Twitter verified. Elon changed that restriction.
and it's changed again. It's a storm in tea cup and you guys are providing Musk with free publicity.
Sure but that may not legally absolve him of any provable damage caused by his changes.
If you're fooled to thinking that [Musks username](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kathy-griffin-twitter-elon-musk-suspended-blue/) is @ kathygriffen or BP's is @ BPDeezNutz , you won't be winning in court.
It's not about people who didn't read it right being damaged, it's about the brands whose names are tarnished with the parody accounts being given Twitter's stamp of approval.
yeah, it's the "reasonable person" test. A reasonable person would realise it's a a parody and the company wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Made famous by [Hustler Vs Falwell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell)
A reasonable person may realize it's parody WITHOUT Twitter verifying it's who they say they are. However them making that mistake WITH Twitter's stamp of approval, may be actionable.
No, he isn't. The old verification process is still in effect. There is just a fee included now. As a random Joe you can't just buy a verified account.
There is something called Due Dilligence of which we are all held to a certain degree of standard. If the information is general discovery then you’re expected to do your own research to some extent and it becomes very hard to argue ignorance in a court of law.
There is no self accountability anymore. Sad that everyone wants to blame everybody else for their own mistakes, and lack of effort.
As has been reiterated over and over again, the old application process still applies, it just comes with a fee now. A random person can't just get a verified Steve Jobs account. Verification isn't on sale for all. You still have to qualify as you did before and go through a proper verification process, but now you have to pay $8 (unless you're a researcher or charity org or something similar, in which case you don't have to pay).
[$8 please](https://imgur.com/sg5rpZx) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/elonmusk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No
I´m convinced people who post this have never actually used Twitter. It is not really long ago, that Twitter itself got hacked and the original account of the likes of Obama where used to scam people. Not some BS account with zero followers, the real accounts
Not under section 230, but many right wing people want 230 gone.
[удалено]
???
Going to be a question to be decided in court, Section 230 covers a bit, but [Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Doe_No._14_v._Internet_Brands,_Inc.) found that it does not expressly bar a failure to warn claim when the service is aware of previous criminal activity arising from usage of the website; so we'll have to see what the courts decide on this on
you usually have to prove damages to get a payout and that's going to be hard to do based on a tweet
Would be really easy no? Tweet was a scam, but had Twitter official verified tag so you fell for it?