Like it or hate it, it is undeniable that social media is a massive part of the culture. What were once cool websites that you could connect with people of like interests, or at least your extended family and friends you haven’t seen in a while, now are multi-billion dollar businesses that have influence over social trends, politics, and many other social constructs we depend on daily. With social media being so entrenched in the fabric of our digital worlds, it’s important to know exactly where you stand in regard to your individual rights and privacy. Let’s take a look at one contemporary situation that is sure to have ripple effects throughout society in the months and years to come.
Who Owns Social Accounts?
When you post to your favorite social media site, whether it be Instagram, Facebook, Reddit, or any other one, many people think that it is theirs. Their account, their content, their thoughts, they own it. They’ve either been told or assume that what they put on their social media is an extension of their ability to express themselves. Most nations have some type of language in their national constitution that protects their ability for freedom of speech and expression (within the confines of the law) and most view social media as an extension of themselves. Some nations don’t have this and it either severely limits their ability to express their opinions or in some cases, limits their ability to use social media at all.
Of course, that’s its own problem, but I digress.
The issue at hand popped up in, of all things, a bankruptcy case.
When the myriad of judgments against Infowars founder Alex Jones forced his hand into declaring bankruptcy, and selling his assets for restitution, something interesting happened. The site, famous for its conspiracy theories and “alternative news” was put up for auction and a familiar, yet unlikely company was the highest bidder. Global Tetrahedron, the new parent company of the satire website The Onion came out on top with a bid of $3.5 million; $1.75 million cash and at least an equal amount in equity from Sandy Hook plaintiffs that would have a right to any money from the sale of Infowars, which is a subsidiary of Jones’ company Free Speech Systems, LLC. This led Jones to sue the would-be buyers and the families that sued him into ruin. This part of a years-long saga is just now beginning and a resolution will likely be some time away.
The interesting part for social media users is what happened after the bids closed. Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) has interjected itself into the proceedings by claiming that X alone owns the X accounts tied up in the litigation and they cannot be transferred without permission from X. What this means for the average user is that, when it serves their best interest, X (and any other social media sites) owns the rights to the profile and they cannot be transferred without their say so.
Of course, thousands of businesses get sold every year and there is typically no objection made from these tech giants when a new company takes over the social sites, but that doesn’t mean that should a social media company feel the need to, they couldn’t step in and flex their considerable clout over the situation. While the filing admitted that the content that is posted from accounts is property of the account holder, they maintain that they only “grant non-exclusive rights” to the accounts, and have to sign off on any transfer, even if they are tied, like in this case, to the purchase of a company that holds their rights.
Time will tell how this will affect the average user, given that most people won’t need to transfer their account over due to legal proceedings, but the notion that you don’t own your own social media accounts, and the fact that it is buried in the dozens pages of legalese we all consent to when opening an account, is sure to turn some heads.
Comments