This is exactly why businesses shouldn't be run solely on social media handles. A domain name should be the FIRST destination for customers.
It means he knows he can’t do a thing about it.Message from previous owner:
What does it mean? i don't know. Your guess is good as mine.
Sure, people have been selling Twitter handles for years, even employees were taking money under the table during the prior regime in violation.
There’s an entire forum for it, just like namePros but for social media handles.
These are the cases where a lawsuit has to happen to set precedent.
Yes, their TOS says they can remove a handle but it has to be in good faith. I’d sue and even contribute money to this guys case if he wants to proceed.
@jberryhill what are your thoughts on this one? TOS should be abolished or regulated so that companies can’t take your child if it’s in the fine print!
Was he actively trying to sell or did he say there were offers? Two different things…The TOS forbids selling of handles.
Its been reported the @ X former user was trying to sell the handle for $1M.
If its true, Mr. Hwang would be in violation of TOS.
You don't own your twitter handle, X does apparently.
Show attachment 243543
Still, if you believe in his case contact him and set up a gofundme, I'm sure a lawyer somewhere will be glad to take the money during these recessionary times.
I’m with you. He said he “would sell if approached.” That doesn’t sound, to me, like he was actively marketing it for sale.Was he actively trying to sell or did he say there were offers? Two different things…
And btw, if he broke rules of tos, the timing of Elon stealing his handle is impeccable.
Was he actively trying to sell or did he say there were offers? Two different things…
And btw, if he broke rules of tos, the timing of Elon stealing his handle is impeccable.
The @x owner got done wrong, period. Any argument against that position is ludicrous.Based on reports he received many offers for the premium @ X handle.
If he was negotiating behind his privacy wall, its something X would have easy access to review.
I don't believe in trusting a business or brand to any third party platform.
X has been suspending non-active users accounts sitting on premium handles all year.
Just thinking about the top 20,000 English dictionary terms and an average sell price of $10K, would bank $200M from this forthcoming public auction.
No way they'd allow Mr. Hwang to sit on X, while other brands pay them $10K, $100K, or -? for premium handles.
The @x owner got done wrong, period. Any argument against that position is ludicrous.
No offense, your argument is really stupid, not that you have one. I mean your response is dumb as …Agreed.
The former user was fleeced of an opportunity to cash in on a premium handle. If its true he received $10K, $50K, or $100K offers, he should have taken the money. If the allegations are true, he overplayed his hand.
Nevertheless, an objective counter point doesn't equal ludicrous.
When you and Mr. Hwang file your case against the world's richest man with a dark sense of humor; ludicrous won't be a strong enough argument.
You'll need to counter the points presented because it'll be at least one of the arguments you'll need to overcome.
No offense, your argument is really stupid, not that you have one. I mean your response is dumb as …
What report do you have that he violated TOS and have you confirmed that as a fact?Yep, my argument that Mr. Hwang was:
1. not an owner, but a user
2. its reported he violated the TOS
3. ludicrous isn't an argument that will hold up in Court
4. Better to have taken $50K, than leave with $0
Very stupid.
Good luck with your case
Yes, their TOS says they can remove a handle but it has to be in good faith. I’d sue and even contribute money to this guys case if he wants to proceed.
@jberryhill what are your thoughts on this one?
EnoughHow much money do you want to contribute?
Money trumps law or you wouldn’t ask about it.