Twitter board agrees to $44 billion sale to billionaire Tesla founder Elon Musk

[bilateralrope]

My prediction is that serious consequences are going to start on the 25th of next month.

August 25 is when the EU Digital Services Act kicks in. EU officials have had some talks with Musk, warning him that they didn't think Twitter was capable of moderating up to the standards it will require. I'll be surprised if Musk took any of those warnings seriously. Which means the EU knows exactly which company they will make an example of. We are talking fines of up to 6% of the companies global income until the company is in compliance. With that compliance likely only coming via the servers shutting down.

[Solauren]

Elon really does have the notion that the law doesn't apply to him.

I really wish something would happen to disabuse him of that notion. I would hate for him to be right about that. Not the least because it would encourage other extremely wealthy people to act even more rogue than they currently do.

I'm willing to bet alot of other extremely wealthy people are watching him going "Fucking idiot. We get away with some much because of what we DON'T try to pull. Now he's pulling all that, and when he goes down, people might start looking at us more seriously." At which point they turn to their fixers and damage control people and tell them to make sure everything is water and air tight just in case.

[bilateralrope]

First some tweets showing how bright the illegal X is. It also flashes. Just in case anyone in the apartment building across the road wanted to sleep.

https://twitter.com/itsmefrenchy123/sta ... 0913502209
https://twitter.com/realchrisjbeale/sta ... 5236403200
https://twitter.com/realchrisjbeale/sta ... 9166551040

Also:

Apple rejects new name 'X' for Twitter iOS app because... rules

By Ax Sharma
July 29, 2023 06:33 AM

Mr. Musk may have successfully pushed Twitter's new name and logo, 'X', and even made the vanity domain x.com redirect to the social media website, but that's not to say, the Mathematical double-struck letter will fit the bill everywhere.

Turns out, Apple's App Store can't accept the new name for Twitter's iOS app because of minimum character requirements.

Twitter still Twitter on App Store

This week, both Google Play and Apple's App Store pushed updated versions of the Twitter app respectively for Android and iOS users.

The latest app version bears the 'X' logo, and in some cases, Twitter's new name.

BleepingComputer observed, for example, that Google Play store page for the Android app now bears the name 'X' not Twitter:

The app, however, still shows up as "Twitter" among installed apps on an Android, and the application package (APK) ID remains com.twitter.android internally:

This is in stark contrast to the latest version of Twitter's iOS app, which unfortunately couldn't be renamed to 'X' on the App Store—and it's got to to with the minimum number of characters an iOS app name must have.

"On iOS, the situation is distinct as Apple does not permit any app to have a single character as their app name," data scientist and Next founder, Nick Sheriff pointed out.

"Twitter was able to change the logo of their iOS app but not the name, since Apple requires app names to be at least 2 characters," mocked San Francisco-based Erik Berlin.

While iOS app names "can be up to 30 characters long," they must be at least 2 characters in length, failing which the app name will be rejected by Apple:

Some Apple users report seeing the 'X' app on their iPhone or iPad device after fetching the latest update, but the name restriction remains in effect on the App Store.

"What about X and a space, either before or after?" software developer Yusuf Alp suggested a potential workaround in response to Berlin's post.

"He already has a company called SpaceX," chuckled Berlin.

Twitter's rushed and inconsistent rebranding seems to be causing issues in other areas—legal and technical, as well.

The app's icon change to 'X' triggered security alerts for Microsoft Edge users this week, as BleepingComputer first reported.

Internet content filters in some regions, like Indonesia, also started blocking the 'x.com' website, mistaking it for adult content.

Update, July 29th, 1:17 PM ET: Credited Sheriff who had originally tweeted about the App Store name restriction.

Last I heard, Apple was one of the companies still advertising on Twitter. So I'm expecting a tantrum from Musk over not being allowed single character names.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

He doesn't strike me as the pragmatic type who would simply accept having a space before or after the X if that's all it would take as a workaround.

[LaCroix]

And if that were allowed, chances are that these two names are already taken, as well...

[bilateralrope]

Embarrassed about paying Musk for Twitter Blue? You can hide the checkmark now

From verification symbol to source of shame: Paying users can hide blue checks.
JON BRODKIN - 8/3/2023, 4:32 AM

Twitter's subscription service has a new feature for users who don't want the world to know they're giving $8 a month to Elon Musk: hiding the checkmark.

"As a subscriber, you can choose to hide your checkmark on your account," says a newly updated page describing the subscription service formerly known as Twitter Blue. The service was renamed "X Blue" to match Musk's rebranding of Twitter as X.

Even if you choose to hide that checkmark you bought, there's no guarantee other users won't figure out that you're a subscriber. It just won't be quite as obvious.

"The checkmark will be hidden on your profile and posts," the company says. "The checkmark may still appear in some places and some features could still reveal you have an active subscription. Some features may not be available while your checkmark is hidden."

Some of the limits could be lifted eventually as the page says, "We will continue to evolve this feature to make it better for you." The option to hide the blue checkmark is in the "Profile customization" section of a user's account settings.

Using X Blue perks reveals subscription status

It may never be possible to completely hide one's status as a subscriber unless you avoid using certain X Blue features. The subscription lets users make posts of up to 25,000 characters instead of the typical limit of 280. It also lets you upload longer videos, use bolding and italics in text, use an NFT as a profile picture, and edit posts for up to one hour after they're posted. Using any of those features might tip off others that you're an X Blue subscriber.

Before Musk bought Twitter in October 2022, the blue checkmark signified that an account was deemed to be notable and authentic. Twitter's verification system made it harder to impersonate real people or organizations.

Musk didn't like that system, so he turned checkmarks into a perk for paying subscribers and removed checkmarks from most accounts verified under the old system. The change inspired a meme, "This MF paid for Twitter."

Having a checkmark doesn't automatically mean that you paid for a subscription. Accounts with over 1 million followers generally have checkmarks even if the user hasn't paid. But it appears that you need to pay the monthly fee to remove the checkmark, as X describes it as an option for subscribers.

Musk “Verified since 3000 BCE”

When Musk first rolled out paid checkmarks, you could see whether someone paid simply by clicking the checkmark on their account. That would reveal a message that said either, "This account is verified because it's subscribed to Twitter Blue," or "This account is verified because it's notable in government, news, entertainment, or another designated category."

Now, clicking a checkmark doesn't show either of those messages. The current message on a checkmarked account says, "This account is verified."

But the pop-up includes the date of verification—"Verified since December 2009" for Donald Trump's account, for example—which can indicate whether a user got a checkmark before or after Musk changed the system.

Musk's account has a special designation: It says, "This account is verified because it's an affiliate of @X on X," and "Verified since 3000 BCE."

People who are annoyed at all the people blocking them because they have a subscription now have a choice:
- Stop paying money for the x-subscription
- Keep paying. Hide that you're paying for it. Hope that you don't accidently do something that gives it away.

Also, I'm curious if anyone can figure out why Musk marked his account as being verified since 3000 BCE. Why did he pick that year ?

[bilateralrope]

X sues hate speech researchers whose “scare campaign” spooked Twitter advertisers

Lawsuit comes as Musk and Yaccarino seize control of X's trust and safety team.
ASHLEY BELANGER - 8/2/2023, 6:29 AM

As Twitter continues its rebrand as X, it looks like Elon Musk hopes to quash any claims that the platform under its new name is allowing rampant hate speech to fester. Yesterday, X Corp sued a nonprofit, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), for allegedly "actively working to assert false and misleading claims" regarding spiking levels of hate speech on X and successfully "encouraging advertisers to pause investment on the platform," Twitter's blog said.

In its complaint, X Corp. claims that CCDH's reports have caused an estimated tens of millions in advertising revenue loss. The company said it's aware of "at least eight" specific organizations, including large, multinational corporations, that "immediately paused their advertising spend on X based on CCDH’s reports and articles." X also claimed that "at least five" companies "paused their plans for future advertising spend" and three companies decided not to reactivate campaigns, all allegedly basing decisions to stop spending due to CCDH's reporting.

X is alleging that CCDH is being secretly funded by foreign governments and X competitors to lob this attack on the platform, as well as claiming that CCDH is actively working to censor opposing viewpoints on the platform. Here, X is echoing statements of US Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who accused the CCDH of being a "foreign dark money group" in 2021—following a CCDH report on 12 social media accounts responsible for 65 percent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, Fox Business reported.

"This is the same dark money group that tried to have the conservative @FDRLST deplatformed last year. And they’ve gone after other conservative sites as well, like @BreitbartNews," Hawley said. "But who is funding this overseas dark money group—Big Tech? Billionaire activists? Foreign governments? We have no idea. Americans deserve to know what foreign interests are attempting to influence American democracy."

The CCDH's website says that it's funded by "philanthropic trusts and members of the public." A website dedicated to tracking funding sources of progressive organizations, InfluenceWatch, reported that the CCDH, which has offices in the US and the United Kingdom, has ties to the left-wing British Labour Party.

CCDH founder and CEO Imran Ahmed claims that Musk is attempting to censor the CCDH. Ahmed said in a statement provided to Ars that "Elon Musk’s latest legal threat is straight out of the authoritarian playbook."

"He is now showing he will stop at nothing to silence anyone who criticizes him for his own decisions and actions," Ahmed said.

Reuters reported that CCDH's lawyers said X's allegations had no legal basis and accused X of "intimidating those who have the courage to advocate against incitement, hate speech, and harmful content online."

X's lawyer, J. Jonathan Hawk, did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment.

Disputing the data

In a blog, X accused the CCDH of "actively working to prevent free expression" by allegedly gaining unauthorized access to X data that was then allegedly taken out of context in attempts to paint X as a platform overwhelmed by hate speech and misinformation. The CCDH's goal, X claimed, was to silence or de-platform certain X users and deprive X of revenue.

The lawsuit was triggered by a particular report that the CCDH published in June, finding that "Twitter fails to act on 99 percent of hate posted by Twitter Blue subscribers." As media outlets reported on the CCDH's findings, X CEO Linda Yaccarino tweeted to debunk the CCDH report, claiming that it relied on "a collection of incorrect, misleading, and outdated metrics."

X's complaint now goes further to debunk the CCDH report and many others, saying that "CCDH prepares its 'research' reports and articles using flawed methodologies to advance incorrect, misleading narratives. CCDH’s methodologies use, for example, inappropriately small and cherry-picked, non-randomized data samples that focus on only the social media accounts of organizations and people expressing viewpoints contrary to CCDH’s own views."

In a blog, X described "several ways in which the CCDH is actively working to prevent free expression," including allegedly targeting users who "speak about issues the CCDH doesn’t agree with" and attempting to de-platform those users. X also claimed that the CCDH's reporting harms free-speech organizations more broadly by hurting X's profits and ultimately endangering organizations' access to X's free services.

The tension here ultimately seems to spring from the CCDH's mission, which is to advocate for less hate speech and misinformation on platforms. For example, X's complaint cites CCDH reports calling for anti-vaxxers and climate deniers to be de-platformed in support of its claims that CCDH is advocating for broad censorship.

X argues that the "CCDH seeks to prevent public dialogue and the public’s access to free expression in favor of an ideological echo chamber that conforms to CCDH’s favored viewpoints." And X claims that the CCDH "cherry-picks" data to do this, allegedly ignoring how many impressions that "hundreds of millions of posts made each day on X" receive and instead looking only at the total number of posts including hate speech or misinformation to allegedly "falsely claim it had statistical support showing the platform is overwhelmed with harmful content."

Had the CCDH instead considered impressions on posts including hate speech, for example, X's blog claims that the data would have shown that "today, more than 99.99 percent of post impressions are healthy."

X is not the only one disputing the CCDH's data. In several reports, the CCDH cites Brandwatch as a data source. Brandwatch has since tweeted that CCDH's report on Twitter Blue subscribers "relied on incomplete and outdated data" and "contained metrics used out of context to make unsubstantiated assertions about Twitter."

Unauthorized access to data

X's blog accused the CCDH of gaining unauthorized access to data to implement a "scare campaign" and put "ongoing pressure on brands to prevent the public’s access to free expression."

According to X's complaint, the CCDH allegedly illegally obtained data in two ways. First, it scraped the X platform, violating X's terms of service. Second, the CCDH allegedly "induced one of Brandwatch's customers" to share login information so that the CCDH could access X data—which X has since described as "limited, selective, and incomplete"—to support the CCDH's research.

Brandwatch provides a service that enables its customers to "analyze posts and X/Twitter users," X's complaint said. Customers who enter into licensing agreements with Brandwatch can monitor this data to do things like identify influencers or analyze certain topics or sentiments. Back in April, X updated its contract with Brandwatch to prohibit its customers from sharing data with third parties, putting Brandwatch on the hook as jointly liable for any violations.

According to X's complaint, the CCDH was never a Brandwatch customer and never had authorization to access Brandwatch data that was directly cited in several CCDH reports. X claims that the CCDH accessing this data caused X additional revenue losses "in excess of tens of thousands of dollars," which allegedly "will continue to increase."

X has demanded a jury trial and hopes the US district court in Northern California will order the CCDH to compensate X for damages and be permanently prevented from accessing or using Brandwatch data.

Ars could not immediately reach Brandwatch for comment.

The CCDH has denied X's allegations and claimed that Musk is misleading the public about hate spreading on the X platform. Ahmed said that the CCDH's "research shows that hate and disinformation is spreading like wildfire on the platform under Musk’s ownership and this lawsuit is a direct attempt to silence" efforts to raise awareness of the problem.

"People don’t want to see or be associated with hate, antisemitism, and the dangerous content that we all see proliferating on X," Ahmed said. "Musk is trying to ‘shoot the messenger’ who highlights the toxic content on his platform rather than deal with the toxic environment he’s created. The CCDH’s independent research won’t stop—Musk will not bully us into silence.”

X restructures its trust and safety team

The same day that X sued the CCDH, Musk and Yaccarino announced that they will both now oversee X's trust and safety team, Reuters reported.

The trust and safety team is responsible for content moderation, and both X executives have embraced X's current policy of limiting reach of offensive content rather than restricting it entirely. Under this strategy, it won't matter to Musk and Yaccarino how many posts include hate speech, focusing instead on limiting the total number of X users who view the offensive posts.

For groups like the CCDH—which would prefer not to see a single post including hate speech on the platform—this strategy will likely remain strongly criticized, and the volume of hate speech on the platform will likely continue to be disputed as each side continues using different metrics. It will be up to advertisers to decide which side's metrics are right, and X has an obvious stake in winning that fight.

It could be easier for X to win that battle if advocacy groups like the CCDH just didn't have access to X data. And at least one other organization that X is suing has alleged that X is currently aggressively working to cut off public access to data by suing over the same kind of data scraping that X accused the CCDH of participating in.

According to Or Lenchner—the CEO of the world's leading open data platform, Bright Data—X's lawsuit against Bright Data "is an effort to build a wall around publicly available data on Twitter" and "has no basis." Lenchner told Ars that Bright Data collects "public web data for more than 20,000 customers worldwide, including Fortune 500 companies, academic institutions, non-profits, NGOs and large social media networks" and that its practices are "fully compliant with the law."

"We are committed to making public data broadly available to everyone to benefit society and will vigorously defend our position in court to ensure the Internet remains accessible to all," Lenchner told Ars.

In its Bright Data complaint, X accused Bright Data of building "an illicit data-scraping business on the backs of innovative technology companies like X Corp."

Researchers have warned that the harder that X makes it to access X user data, the less the world will know about how the platform is working to shield users from harmful content.

Improving X's reputation as a safe platform for advertisers is critical to X's success, and that's likely why Yaccarino told X employees in an email that X is currently seeking to hire "a new leader for brand safety and suitability," Reuters reported.

Last June, the former head of then-Twitter's trust and safety team, Ella Irwin, resigned. Now, Yaccarino has told employees that three X executives will take her place: likely Musk, Yaccarino, and the new brand safety and suitability leader. These leaders will be tasked with proving that limiting the reach of harmful posts can make a platform just as safe as reducing the overall volume of harmful posts. X's blog explained why Musk's philosophy on brand safety is crucial to promote as much free expression on the platform as possible—but to embrace that philosophy requires users to trust in Musk's metrics.

"Free expression and platform safety are not at odds," X's blog said. "We are proving this every day through innovative enforcement policies that have helped reduce hateful content viewed on the platform."

Musk was annoyed that CCDH were driving advertisers away. So he goes and triggers the Streisand Effect.

[bilateralrope]

X user “super pissed” that Musk ordered takeover of his @music account

X user quits paying for Twitter Blue to protest X commandeering his account.
ASHLEY BELANGER - 8/5/2023, 10:28 AM

About a week after X commandeered the popular @X account from longtime Twitter user Gene X Hwang, another user has reported that X has taken over his popular account, @music.

"16 years ago, I created @music and have been running it ever since," Jeremy Vaught, director of engineering at the nonprofit Life Happens, posted on X. "Just now, Twitter/X just ripped it away. Super pissed."

Vaught told Ars that he created the @music Twitter account in 2007 as a way to promote independent music being performed live in Second Life.

Over the next 16 years, Vaught connected with a vibrant community of software developers on Twitter as he continued developing major promotions in Second Life. Then, once his online interests grew past Second Life, he continued using the @music account to simply post about music, as Twitter became his preferred social media platform. With that basic account premise, the @music audience exploded, and he organically gained followers, eventually building up to approximately 450,000 followers.

During that time, Vaught experimented with the @music account, seeking the best way to utilize the large following there.

"I'm a software developer," Vaught told Ars. "And I was trying to come up with the right way to use that audience and do something with it."

But Vaught never had the time to focus on leveraging the @music audience, only ever benefiting from the account when companies occasionally sent him free perks like headphones in trade for promotions. Occasionally, buyers would approach Vaught, trying to tempt him to sell the @music handle, but the biggest offer was only around $5,000. Vaught said he was never interested because he knew that selling his handle violated Twitter's terms of service, and he figured there was more value in keeping the account.

Now X has taken the account away. In the email Vaught posted on X, the platform told Vaught that "the user handle associated with the account @music will be affiliated with X Corp."

"Accordingly, your handle will be changed to a new user handle," the email said.

If you visit @music now, it has 11 million followers, which—judging from an Internet Archive snapshot—appears to be generated from merging the now-defunct @TwitterMusic account into Vaught's @music account.

“Twitter’s not dead to me”

X offered Vaught a few alternative usernames to consider—@musicfan, @musicmusic, @music123, or @musiclover—none of which appealed to Vaught. He said that it was likely X had commandeered these handles from other users and that the account wouldn't be the same under any other username, even if he did choose a new one.

To "minimize any inconvenience" from having his account handle taken away, X defaulted to changing Vaught's username to @musicfan, which he described as "probably the least worst" alternative the platform suggested.

Right now, Vaught isn't sure if he's going to continue using the account under a different name.

"Honestly, if it's not @music, it's really not that interesting." Vaught told Ars. "One of my initial reactions was just to close the whole thing down, right? Like I'm just so irritated and so mad."

But while his reaction the day after learning that X was commandeering his handle was extreme frustration, Vaught told Ars that the platform will remain his primary form of social media.

"it's highly annoying, but Twitter is still my preferred social media," Vaught said. "That's how I communicate and learn my news about what's going on. Nothing else compares."

His only "minor protest" to X's action, he said, was to cancel his Twitter Blue subscription.

"I did turn off the Twitter Blue," Vaught said. "I don't feel like I have the need to keep paying [Elon Musk] 11 bucks a month."

X does not respond to requests for comment, so it's impossible to know how many more accounts may be commandeered during the Twitter rebrand and beyond.

Vaught said that he acknowledges that he owns nothing when it comes to managing accounts on social media platforms and will always be at the whim of what the platform wants regarding accounts. But he had taken some comfort when @TwitterMusic launched and nobody came for his account then. So he wasn't necessarily expecting to lose the @music account this week.

"I thought, if I can survive that, who's gonna come after it now?" Vaught said.

Vaught is mostly a Musk fan, as he's interested in Musk's electric cars and space developments. He said that this experience with X hasn't tainted his opinion of Musk or his relationship too much with X as a platform. He's holding out hope that Musk has a long-term plan for where Musk is taking X, but like many users, he's struggling to adjust to the rebranding. Vaught still refers to the platform by its original name.

"Twitter's not dead to me at this point," Vaught told Ars, even if "it's a super huge bummer" to lose the @music account. "Sixteen years is a long time to invest in something and then just have it ripped out from underneath you," Vaught said.

I only post this to show that Musk is willing to confiscate accounts from X-Blue subscribers. Which made this one an ex-Blue subscriber.

Just in case anyone still thinks that subscribing prevents impersonation.

[bilateralrope]

Twitter held in contempt, fined $350K over Trump data delay

Trump accused the DOJ of "secretly attacking" his Twitter account.
ASHLEY BELANGER - 8/10/2023, 9:17 AM

Today, an unsealed court document revealed that, earlier this year, a federal judge held Twitter (now called X) in contempt of court. The judge imposed $350,000 in sanctions.

Sanctions were applied after the social media platform delayed compliance with a federal search warrant that required Twitter to hand over Donald Trump's Twitter data without telling the former president about the warrant for 180 days.

At first, Twitter resisted producing Trump's data and argued that the government's nondisclosure order violated the First Amendment and the Stored Communications Act. However, US circuit judge Florence Pan wrote that the court was largely unpersuaded by Twitter's arguments, mostly because the government's interest in Trump's data as part of its ongoing January 6 investigation was "unquestionably compelling."

Last week, Trump was indicted on felony charges for working to overturn the results of the 2020 election, AP reported. Trump has since pled not guilty and continues to post on Truth Social, where he commented on today's Twitter revelations. The former president said that he "just found out" that "crooked" Joe Biden's Justice Department "secretly attacked" his Twitter account. He called the search warrant a "major 'hit'" to his civil rights.

"Does the First Amendment still exist?" Trump wrote.

Twitter did not respond to Ars' request to comment.

Why was Twitter held in contempt?

The unsealed court document provides a timeline of events leading the court to hold Twitter in contempt.

Twitter's troubles started on January 17, 2023, when the government secured a search warrant that "directed Twitter to produce data and records related to the '@realDonaldTrump' Twitter account." The government then took the extra step to apply for a nondisclosure order, which was granted because "the district court found that there were 'reasonable grounds to believe' that disclosing the warrant to former President Trump 'would seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation' by giving him 'an opportunity to destroy evidence, change patterns of behavior, [or] notify confederates.'"

The government immediately tried to serve Twitter with the search warrant—which required Trump's data to be shared within 10 days—but the website where Twitter gathers legal requests was "inoperative." It took two days before Twitter's website was fixed and the government was able to submit the warrant, and even then, Twitter did not immediately respond. Finally, on January 25, the government reached Twitter's counsel, who said "that she 'had not heard anything about [the] [w]arrant.'"

Then, on February 1, four days after failing to meet the deadline, Twitter "objected to producing any of the account information." The government immediately requested a hearing where Twitter had to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for missing the deadline.

That hearing was scheduled for February 7. During the hearing, Twitter "requested that the court stay its enforcement of the warrant until after it adjudicated Twitter's motion to vacate or modify the nondisclosure order." Essentially, Twitter didn't want to hand over data without Trump's knowledge, but the court denied Twitter's request and "found Twitter in contempt of court."

At that point, Twitter was given an "opportunity to purge its contempt by producing" Trump's account information. The court checked with Twitter and confirmed that it was capable of meeting a rapid deadline and turning over the data by 5:00 pm that evening.

"I believe we are prepared to do that," Twitter's counsel said. "Yes, Your Honor."

Twitter missed the deadline, again

To encourage Twitter to meet this new deadline, the court threatened hefty fines for non-compliance. The judge laid out a formula for "sanctions that would accrue at a geometric rate: $50,000 per day, to double every day that Twitter did not comply." At that time, Twitter did not object to the sanctions formula, Pan noted in the newly unsealed opinion.

"Twitter missed the 5pm deadline," the document said. "Although Twitter timely produced some records, its production was incomplete."

Ultimately, it took Twitter until 8:06 pm on February 9 to produce all the data that the government sought. According to the court, that was three days late. Twitter tried and failed to argue its way out of sanctions by saying that it acted in good faith to supply information as quickly as possible.

"Twitter contends that it 'substantially complied with the [w]arrant' because 'there was nothing [it] could have done to comply faster' after the court issued the February 7 order," the court document said.

The court rejected Twitter's "good faith" arguments, mainly because the company blew past the original deadline and repeatedly failed to raise concerns at earlier opportunities.

On March 3, the court denied Twitter's attempt to modify or vacate the nondisclosure order, found Twitter in civil contempt, and imposed the $350,000 contempt sanction.

While Twitter appealed the decision, the company "paid the $350,000 sanction into an escrow account maintained by the district court clerk's office."

The appeal process stretched on for months. On June 20, the government modified its nondisclosure order to "permit Twitter to notify the former President of the existence and contents of the warrant." That meant that "the only limitation on the disclosure would be" for Twitter "to withhold the identity of the case agent assigned to the investigation."

Meanwhile, Twitter was late in its attempts to oppose the sanctions formula. The court opinion said that Twitter's counsel "belatedly" pointed out that "roughly one month of noncompliance" would have "required Twitter to pay a sanction greater than 'the entire world's gross domestic product.'"

Twitter continued challenging the nondisclosure order and the sanctions, but the court rejected most of its arguments and ultimately affirmed the contempt sanctions, issuing its opinion on July 18.

"Twitter never raised any objection to the sanctions formula, despite having several opportunities to do so," Pan wrote in the opinion. "The company thus appeared to acquiesce to the formula. Moreover, the $350,000 sanction ultimately imposed was not unreasonable, given Twitter's $40 billion valuation and the court's goal of coercing Twitter's compliance."

So much incompetence here that it's not clear if Twitter was also trying to protect Trump.

Future legal cases against Twitter are going to be entertaining.

[Solauren]

Change the fine to $350,000 PER HOUR.

If that doesn't work within a week (Approx 50M), change it to 350,000 per MINUTE.

After a few bit of that, just start seizing X/Twitters assets, then go after Musk directly.

[Lost Soal]

Change the fine to $350,000 PER HOUR.

If that doesn't work within a week (Approx 50M), change it to 350,000 per MINUTE.

After a few bit of that, just start seizing X/Twitters assets, then go after Musk directly.

The fine's been paid and the warrant complied with. There's nothing to punish.

[bilateralrope]

Change the fine to $350,000 PER HOUR.

If that doesn't work within a week (Approx 50M), change it to 350,000 per MINUTE.

After a few bit of that, just start seizing X/Twitters assets, then go after Musk directly.

The fine doubled daily. 50k for the first day failed to comply, 100k for the second, 200k for the third. Then Twitter complied.

Had they not complied, it would have continued to double. You can do the math to see how quickly that adds up.

[Solauren]

I was thinking more for in the future. Points Acknowledged.

[Lost Soal]

The future the lawyers might actually read the motions before "agreeing" to the formula.

[bilateralrope]

Or at least figure out how quickly Twitter can comply before agreeing to a timeframe.


As for next time, this fine worked. Imprisoning key people for contempt of court until Twitter complies should also work.

[Ralin]

Yeah was reading elsewhere that the whole exponential fine thing isn't unheard of, but it's damned unusual and mainly trotted out when someone with a lot of money is pissing off the court.

Or at least figure out how quickly Twitter can comply before agreeing to a timeframe.

I doubt the lawyers can reliably predict the boy-king's whims, or how efficiently what's left of Twitter's staff can do anything for that matter.

As for next time, this fine worked. Imprisoning key people for contempt of court until Twitter complies should also work.

That does seem overboard.

[Solauren]

Or at least figure out how quickly Twitter can comply before agreeing to a timeframe.


As for next time, this fine worked. Imprisoning key people for contempt of court until Twitter complies should also work.

Unless Twitter has a completely fucked up data-center/operating package, that should be a simple as

Select from * from Tbl_Posts, where Field.Poster = "Donald Trump"
and
Select from * from Tbl_Events, where Field.Event_Creator = "Donald Trump"
and
Select from * from Tbl_Messages, where Field.Send = "Donald Trump"

With "Donald Trump" being replaced by whatever internal ID number is needed.

[Lord Revan]

Or at least figure out how quickly Twitter can comply before agreeing to a timeframe.


As for next time, this fine worked. Imprisoning key people for contempt of court until Twitter complies should also work.

Unless Twitter has a completely fucked up data-center/operating package, that should be a simple as

Select from * from Tbl_Posts, where Field.Poster = "Donald Trump"
and
Select from * from Tbl_Events, where Field.Event_Creator = "Donald Trump"
and
Select from * from Tbl_Messages, where Field.Send = "Donald Trump"

With "Donald Trump" being replaced by whatever internal ID number is needed.

Considering how much of a shitshow Twitter/X has been since Musk took over it wouldn't surprise me at all if Musk demanded an update that royally fucked up the data-center/operating package to point you need to arcane method known only to Musk to draw that data that isn't displayed via app or something else that's giving Musk money.

[bilateralrope]

CEO claims X, formerly Twitter, is close to ‘break even’

Amanda Silberling@asilbwrites / 3:33 AM GMT+12•August 11, 2023

X CEO Linda Yaccarino claims that the company formerly known as Twitter is almost breaking even.

“I’ve been at the company eight weeks,” Yaccarino said in her first broadcast interview since taking on her new role. “The operational run rate right now… we’re pretty close to break even.”

This is a surprising declaration, given the company’s financial struggles since its acquisition by Elon Musk. Ad revenue is plummeting as brands pause spending on the platform, and X has gone to desperate lengths to get more cash flow — remember when we all got rate limited for not subscribing to Twitter Blue? Or when the company curbed its developer community by charging exorbitant rates for API access?

But if Yaccarino’s account can be trusted, it seems that X’s financials are shaking out. After all, it did reduce its staff size from around 8,000 to 1,500 — though laid off employees have still yet to receive their promised three months of severance. Those aren’t the only outstanding payments that the company is on the hook for. X is also facing multiple lawsuits over not paying rent for company office spaces in several countries.

“Our data licensing and API with X is an incredible business. Our new subscription business [is] growing,” Yaccarino said. “And then, part of my, what I would say, expertise and experience, and what I came to do, was to drive advertising at the company.”

She added that she is having daily meetings with brands, which she says are encouraging for the company’s ads business. X also is integrating AI-powered ad tech that lets brands choose how careful they want to be with the kinds of content their ads are placed alongside. According to Musk, less conservative product placements will be sold at a discount.

Yaccarino is a far less controversial, more trusted source than Musk, a divisive figure whose claims are hard to take at face value. However, some of her statements about X seem difficult to substantiate. For one, she told CNBC reporter Sara Eisen, “I can confidently sit in front of you and say that 99.9% of all posted impressions are healthy.”

“How do you define healthy, though?” Eisen pushed back. “Is porn healthy? And are conspiracy theories healthy?”

Yaccarino says that this “health” is due to X’s success with “freedom of speech, not freedom of reach,” and claimed that “if [a post] is lawful but not awful, it’s extraordinarily difficult for you to see it.”

When asked about public figures like Kanye West, an extremely vocal antisemite who is planning to return to Twitter, Yaccarino parroted Musk’s talking point that “what’s at the core of freedom of expression [is] you might not agree with what everyone is saying.”

We can wager, though, that more than 0.01% of X’s population would likely consider it an unhealthy experience to read West’s bigoted tirades.

To close out the conversation, Yaccarino was asked about one of the most absurd subplots that Silicon Valley has seen: Will Musk and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg cage fight?

“We’ll see if that cage match really does happen,” she said. “What I can say is that I’ve had a front row seat of witnessing that Elon is training.”

This is the quote from the article I want to highlight:

“if [a post] is lawful but not awful, it’s extraordinarily difficult for you to see it.”

Looking at the kind of people who have been unbanned it sounds like she's saying the quiet part out loud

[bobalot]

Have you seen Musk's nose? How much cocaine is that guy doing?

[LadyTevar]

What's this?
No more BLOCKING?

X-twiter to Remove Blocking

The blocking feature will be removed for users of X, formerly Twitter, Elon Musk has announced, claiming the feature "makes no sense".

The X boss said users will still be able to block people from directly messaging them, however.

But many people on social media said it will make it hard for people to remove abusive posts from their timeline.

It is the latest in a series of changes Mr Musk has made since taking over the site in a $44bn deal last year.

Currently, when users "block" an account, it stops that account's posts from appearing in the blocker's timeline, and vice versa.

An account that is blocked can no longer send messages to the blocker, nor can it view their posts.

Former Twitter founder, Jack Dorsey, seemed to agree with Mr Musk's decision, posting: "100%. Mute only".

But there are concerns that muting an account would not be sufficient protection from cases of harassment, abuse or stalking.

The mute function currently only stops notifications about an account's posts. An account that is muted can still view the muter's posts and reply to them.

One user called Mr Musk's decision a "huge mistake", saying there are "toxic people" on the platform whom users simply did not want to interact with in any way.

Removing a blocking feature could also potentially violate the terms and conditions of stores like Apple's App Store and Google Play.

Both stores have conditions stating that social media apps should allow users facilities to filter harassment or bullying.

It could mean X is no longer downloadable from those stores.

If the policy goes ahead, it is not clear if all those accounts which are blocked will automatically become unblocked.

Users do however have the option to make their account private, hiding their tweets from the public and only allowing accepted followers to view their posts.

Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, made a series of changes when he took over the social media site, including sacking the company's top executive team and introducing a charge for the site's "blue tick" - or verification - feature.

[Zaune]

I've heard it suggested that this is Dilbert Stark's reaction to one of the backend developers showing him the stats on how many people have him blocked.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

What's this?
No more BLOCKING?

X-twiter to Remove Blocking

The blocking feature will be removed for users of X, formerly Twitter, Elon Musk has announced, claiming the feature "makes no sense".

The X boss said users will still be able to block people from directly messaging them, however.

But many people on social media said it will make it hard for people to remove abusive posts from their timeline.

It is the latest in a series of changes Mr Musk has made since taking over the site in a $44bn deal last year.

Currently, when users "block" an account, it stops that account's posts from appearing in the blocker's timeline, and vice versa.

An account that is blocked can no longer send messages to the blocker, nor can it view their posts.

Former Twitter founder, Jack Dorsey, seemed to agree with Mr Musk's decision, posting: "100%. Mute only".

But there are concerns that muting an account would not be sufficient protection from cases of harassment, abuse or stalking.

The mute function currently only stops notifications about an account's posts. An account that is muted can still view the muter's posts and reply to them.

One user called Mr Musk's decision a "huge mistake", saying there are "toxic people" on the platform whom users simply did not want to interact with in any way.

Removing a blocking feature could also potentially violate the terms and conditions of stores like Apple's App Store and Google Play.

Both stores have conditions stating that social media apps should allow users facilities to filter harassment or bullying.

It could mean X is no longer downloadable from those stores.

If the policy goes ahead, it is not clear if all those accounts which are blocked will automatically become unblocked.

Users do however have the option to make their account private, hiding their tweets from the public and only allowing accepted followers to view their posts.

Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, made a series of changes when he took over the social media site, including sacking the company's top executive team and introducing a charge for the site's "blue tick" - or verification - feature.

Oh, this is going to be fun! For those who haven't already been driven from the platform, this might be the push they've been waiting for

[bilateralrope]

This is going to lead to cycles of the toxic people on Twitter chasing people away, then moving to new targets for their harassment. Hopefully that's the feedback loop that finally finished Twitter off.

If not, the EU Digital Service Act goes into force on friday.

[Solauren]

I've heard it suggested that this is Dilbert Stark's reaction to one of the backend developers showing him the stats on how many people have him blocked.

Dilbert Stark is giving him WAY to much credit.

"Pointy Haired Bosses secret love child with his own hand" works way better.