This is exactly why businesses shouldn't be run solely on social media handles. A domain name should be the FIRST destination for customers.
Well that is precisely what we are doing here too lol We are the product (content creators)That why you own your own domain
Your own destiny
We are all giving away our content and personal data for free for them to use
And namepros doesn't even appreciate us,even removed our commentsWell that is precisely what we are doing here too lol We are the product (content creators)
Actually even with him taking these usernames, he’s probably going to be growing a LOT in the next few years. I’d say maybe around the size of Amazon soon if he ads shopping and getting paid for opinions…There are 2 ways to die
Suddenly
Or
Gradually
Maybe Disney has found a buyer for ESPN...Does anyone realise yet that @music was also STOLEN by Elon and the crew.
Lol just kidding, this is the 15th post saying it.
He has grand plans for X, music and sports could be big pieces of the puzzle so I'm not too surprised.
He probably just means in its current form. Anyone can mute anyone and can also mute by keyword, so a "block" isn't necessarily necessary. Is that what he means?Show attachment 244853
What a stupid idea.
Sorry, you can't block people who are harassing you.
This will surely bring the advertisers back!
I am old enough to remember when Elon said there would be a vote on policy changes.
Brad
Well, who knows what he means exactly. Like usual, this is just some random idea out of the blue with no context.He probably just means in its current form. Anyone can mute anyone and can also mute by keyword, so a "block" isn't necessarily necessary. Is that what he means?
The way it is now that it shows that you're blocked is arguably just a stick to beat people with...
Since buying handles is against TOS, how did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez obtain @aoc?
Great pic!The reason companies put things like that in their TOS is that they don't want to end up being the "handle marketplace court" when people get upset over deals gone bad, sue each other, and then expect Twitter to enforce their contracts.
Show attachment 253092
I loitered there for a while. I admit it.
TOS and EULA are hard to enforce because you can't force a person to read them. If someone decides to Next>Next>Next>Next>Agree they could argue that they clicked and skipped by mistake. There's no way to verify that I read and agreed to the TOS myself. Maybe my cat walked across my keyboard asdgakljgahdfhkl;jfdhasd;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; and agreed to it for me while I was in the kitchen.Great pic!
As to why companies put xyz in their TOS, that’s your opinion, not a fact.
If what you’re saying is true then all TOS is obsolete because the literature is merely a suggestion.
Have you ever argued a case in the domain space where TOS came into play?
As to why companies put xyz in their TOS, that’s your opinion, not a fact.
If what you’re saying is true then all TOS is obsolete because the literature is merely a suggestion.
Have you ever argued a case in the domain space where TOS came into play?
that is kinda funny, that they hunt you down for years over a bank robbery, but not loitering or library books. A crime is a crime, but there are unmentioned levels.Yes, it's my opinion as a person who has written terms for various online services and engaged in disputes and litigation involving them, correct.
Keith, that is like saying "because you got away with loitering, you can shoot up a bank and take all the money".
No, I'm pretty sure there wasn't a cop within a hundred miles of that sign that would give a s... that I was loitering, but plenty would care if I robbed a bank.
They would care if I was loitering if I was causing some kind of other problem. But they can't put a zillion things on the sign like "don't shout at people", "don't pick your nose", "don't stalk people or give them a hard time outside the store", "don't panhandle", "don't engage in prostitution", "don't get drunk".....
So, instead, they put up a sign that says "no loitering" so whatever it is you do to piss people off, they can tell you to go away.
A lot of TOS terms are like that. If you are causing a problem, they will find a way to enforce them. Otherwise, nobody cares.
Absolutely. UDRP's are one example of a TOS provision.
What you are failing to understand is that if the TOS says, "you can't post death threats" and you post death threats, then, yeah, the service in question is likely to shut down your account. Because if they don't, then they are going to get sucked into legal consequences because of your behavior. Having a rule like that allows someone to get kicked out if they are going to cause you trouble, and leaves them with no recourse.
If your TOS says "you can't sell accounts" then you are only going to give a s... if it affects YOU in some way. Like I said, without it, then someone could claim their account was worth $XXXX and you wouldn't let them back in after they lost their password or whatever. It also means that accounts in your service aren't going to get tied up in legal disputes between people arguing about sales gone bad. Your answer to getting drawn into any lawsuit over a contract that someone is claiming would obligate you to transfer a domain name is "the contract is void, because we don't recognize sales."
But the larger point that you seem not to grasp is that it is up to ANY service provider when or whether they are going to enforce their TOS in any particular circumstances, because it is ALSO a provision of pretty much every TOS to have two very important terms:
1. A provision that there are no "third party beneficiaries" in the terms. What this means is that I can't go to court and force Namepros to ban a user because *I* think someone else violated the Namepros terms. In other words, the only "beneficiaries" of the contract (which is what the terms are) are the user and Namepros. I don't get to enforce those terms.
2. A provision that the service provider has the right, but not the obligation, to enforce the terms. That's pretty easy to understand, and it dovetails with not having any third party beneficiaries. In other words, it is up to the service provider, and not some busybody, whether or not the service provider exercises its right to enforce the terms in any particular circumstances.
Look at it this way. You can have a general rule in your house that says "Nobody is allowed to wear a red shirt in my house, and I can enforce this rule in my discretion." Now, your best friend shows up wearing a red shirt. Are you going to kick him out because some stranger on the sidewalk is shouting "Hey, that guy is wearing a red shirt, you need to kick him out."
No, you aren't. It's up to you whether to enforce your own red shirt rule. And the only time you are going to care is if a bunch of people from the local 'red shirt gang' show up at your place and you want to kick them out.
But seriously Keith. How many people and how much money do you think Twitter is going to pay in order to find out whether people are selling handles and then doing what? Twitter is only going to care about a rule like that if it impacts them in some way, such as people getting into bad deals and then crying to Twitter or going to court to try to force Twitter to enforce their deals. No, Twitter isn't going to do that. The rule gives them the ability to say "f--- off" if people come crying to them, or drag them into a lawsuit, over a deal gone bad. But the idea that Twitter gives a flying frog's fart whether two people sell a domain name, and are going to spend all day investigating that, is just silly.
I'm not kidding, though. Whenever I see a "no loitering" sign, I just HAVE to loiter there for at least a little while, just to be a badass.
Here, look at me. I'm a lawyer, breaking the law! Report me to the authorities:
I loitered there for a while. I admit it.