As I've said, any time a company can be shown to be misrepresenting its product/service, they deserve to be called out on it. People deserve to know if a company is providing the product/service as claimed.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Twitter to Increase Tweet Character Limit to 4,000, Elon Musk Says
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I've said, any time a company can be shown to be misrepresenting its product/service, they deserve to be called out on it. People deserve to know if a company is providing the product/service as claimed.
That's irrelevant as this discussion was about a company misrepresenting its product/service which, if done intentionally, could be considered fraud. A company or its product/service does not have to fall under a specific regulating body (e.g., FDA) to be considered engaging in misrepresentation or fraud.
Thing like subscription costs, tweet promotion costs, advertising costs, etc.
Have you read the Twitter TOS yet? That’s the first thing any lawyer taking on such a case would do. I linked to it above.
Twitter does not provide a private webforum, it is open to the world to see and read. And it's not just about the USA it is globally accessible. When operating a company there isn't a single regulation nor a single enforcing agency, in order to be compliant there are many different ones, not just in your own main registered country but also in many others. Those vary from how you account for your finances, deal and treat your staff, but also cover equality, anti-slavery, privacy, and the list goes own.
Just having a 'private' company, and a terms of service doesn't overrule such compliance obligations, in fact in many jurisdictions it doesn't really matter if you make users sign up to your TOS as you can't take their rights away.
The USA is only a small part of the world, and yes employee and consumer rights aren't the best, so I wouldn't use that as a yardstick for the common denominator.
Your posts just get longer and you somehow still fail to list a single specific instance to back up your conclusion.
Getting back to the topic, this is why small character counts are better--skip the sophistry and provide facts.
You have access to the contracts signed between advertisers and Twitter to make the assessment if Twitter complied with the contract?
Typical response, you want something in a single sound bite (tweet) where there are big books on regulation and compliance. As long as you don't even acknowledge the existence of corporate compliance, it is entirely pointless continuing this conversation.
Corporate compliance refers to following--get this--laws and regulations. This is my fourth request for you to specify a single law or regulation they have violated. Shouldn't be hard as earlier you said there were "too many to name".
And here we have it, the absolute classic shifting of the goal posts. I made no reference to a specific law or regulation they've violated, I made reference to your suggestions that they can do what they want as long as it's in the TOS. Very different thing, and even with an updated TOS you have to provide notice. But a TOS can never be contrary to the law, so no, they can't just do what they want.
But now you've switched your position to which they've violated, without further disclosure I can't say that. I wouldn't be surprised if various employment law and employee councils around the world are closely looking into some behaviours. And the EU started looking into the erratic banning of journalists but then before they could do anything he changed his mind again.
Don't be mistaken, that is not what you originally said and what started this exchange. You clearly inferred he could do whatever he wants as its his company and his TOS. That is just incorrect, not just for Twitter but for any company.
"Elon is playing very silly games, but smartly as he stays just about on the right side of the line, or changes his mind again by the time the regulator wake up as they are always slow."
What "line" are you referring to here if not the law? Regulators identify breaches of the law, so what are they sleeping on?
Per your admission, you don't know, but are just impuning because you don't like him. I don't like him either, primarily for aesthetic reasons, but making baseless claims only undermines any criticism.
Oh, and I imply, you infer.
TOS does not necessarily override laws or regulations that may exist in a given state or country, or make a company immune to charges related to all laws or regulations. TOS does not allow a company to get away with misrepresenting their product/service or committing fraud. Knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting a product/service (committing fraud) is illegal.
Knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting a product/service (committing fraud) is illegal and damages can include things related to subscription costs, advertising costs, etc. A contract or TOS agreement does not automatically make a company immune to all laws or regulations.
Goal post shifting. And have you read their TOS yet? It doesn’t appear that you have.
History repeats itself unless populations say enough is enough and break the bad habit.
Ford bought a newspaper. Musk bought a social media. Their descent into madness is the same.
theintercept.com
Ford bought a newspaper. Musk bought a social media. Their descent into madness is the same.
Henry Ford, Elon Musk, and the Dark Path to Extremism
Twitter’s billionaire owner Elon Musk seems set to follow business magnate Henry Ford into the abyss.
theintercept.com
He can and did--that's free speech. You can criticize him for doing so. That's free speech.
Yep, and such is the prerogative of the business owner. If you don't like it, stop using his service or build a better one.
I already said that as a private business he can do whatever he wants. It doesn't change the fact that he is being a hypocrite in doing so, and deserves to be called out for it as long as he shows that characteristic.
I have never used Twitter, nor anything of the sort. I don't plan to. But that also doesn't put him free and clear of any criticisms he deserves to cop. That also... is free speech.
BL.
It's not "goal post shifting" or "straw man." You keep bringing up TOS yet TOS does not protect a company if it can be shown they have been misrepresenting their product/service. A contract or TOS agreement does not automatically make a company immune to all laws or regulations.
Any time a company can be shown to be misrepresenting its product/service, they deserve to be called out on it. Knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting a product/service (committing fraud) is illegal. Again, TOS is not going to protect Twitter or other social media companies if it is determined by a court or agency like the FTC that they have misled users, misrepresented their products/services, etc.
Twitter is NOT regulated. What you’re taking about is NOT handled by the FTC.
This is the kind of thing the FTC handles:
FTC Charges Twitter with Deceptively Using Account Security Data to Sell Targeted Ads
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against Twitter, Inc. for deceptively using account security data for targeted advertising.
Twitter to pay $150 million penalty for allegedly breaking its privacy promises – again
It’s FTC 101. Companies can’t tell consumers they will use their personal information for one purpose and then use it for another.
As far as misrepresenting products and services, Twitter has done no such thing. Their USERS have done so but Twitter the company has not. So that’s a dead end too.
My post never mentioned being "regulated" but in the sense that the FTC regulates things like advertising and Twitter does advertise and is in the advertising business, yes core Twitter activities ARE regulated by the FTC.
"Old" Twitter deceptively misrepresented how they were using product user information and were fined $150 million. As you posted, "FTC Charges Twitter with Deceptively Using Account Security Data to Sell Targeted Ads."
"Old" Twitter had claimed they didn't shadow ban user accounts but "new" Twitter claims that they ("old" Twitter) had been. If true, that would've been misrepresenting the product/service.
You need stop digging holes. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about and since you refuse to even look at Twitter’s TOS it’s very obvious that you’re not interested in debating in good faith.
As explained "a million times" to you, it really doesn't matter much what the TOS states it can't override the rights of the subjects, nor any laws or regulations. It is just not how it works. Using terms a '...not interested in debating in good faith' is utterly pointless and a smoke screen when you make up things like you are doing.