"Sole owner": X does not want to give Alex Jones' accounts to "The Onion"
Centralized social networks are often criticized for the fact that users have no control over their accounts. Elon Musk's X has confirmed this in court.
(Image: kovop/Shutterstock.com)
Two weeks after the US satirical website "The Onion" bought the portal of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Elon Musk's short messaging service X has intervened in the matter and objected to the transfer of the accounts set up there. In a motion filed with the competent federal district court in Texas, Elon Musk's service states that it is the sole owner of all services offered. Neither Alex Jones nor his portal Infowars owned the accounts on X, which is why they could not be resold without his permission. The service thus confirms a fundamental criticism of traditional social networks.
"The accounts belong to X"
The online portal "Infowars" was Alex Jones' main source of money, especially since the right-wing populist's content was blocked on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other services and PayPal also removed its own payment services. Because Jones also claimed that the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut had been staged with actors, relatives of the families went to court. There they enforced claims for damages in the billions. Jones then had to file for bankruptcy and auction off the portal. In a surprising turn of events, "The Onion" bought the site, which was supported by the victims' families.
Videos by heise
The fact that X is now getting involved in the matter is unusual to say the least. Accounts of companies that have been taken over are always passed on. In court, X explains that courts have so far only had to clarify whether accounts belong to a company or individuals. But in any case, it is clear that "the accounts on X belong to X Corp". Alex Jones himself welcomed the intervention. A year ago, Musk had already lifted his Twitter ban and left the conspiracy theorist, who was kicked off the platform in 2018, behind.
X's argument now confirms a central point of criticism of such centralized social networks. No matter how much effort someone has put into setting up an account, for example to increase its reach via a large number of followers, control remains with the operator. X makes it clear that users only own the content they post there, but the accounts themselves are the property of X. The social network therefore has the final say on who can use them. This is another reason why alternatives such as Mastdon and Bluesky have recently gained in popularity, where those responsible promise that users really do have sole control over their accounts.
(mho)
