CNN points out that Elon Musk is overtly threatening his own users, declaring all Twitter accounts are now owned by him and him alone.
…the platform is ultimately Musk’s domain, where he can do as he pleases. Musk has shown a willingness to take over accounts in the past, threatening NPR after the public broadcaster stopped posting to its account and seizing the @America handle for his political action committee that supported President-elect Donald Trump during the campaign.
“What conceivable motivation does a company have for destroying the value in their users’ accounts, and implicitly threatening all other users?” Butterfield said. “It becomes an individual person’s playground, rather than a functioning marketplace of ideas.”
The motivation for destroying value in accounts is overthrowing democracy and repealing governance. It’s not that hard to figure out.
Like asking what motivation does the air force have for dropping a bomb, given it destroys the value of the bomb. Destruction is kind of the whole point.
Reframe the question from “why would someone destroy value?” to “what strategic objective might this destruction serve?” This reveals broader patterns we’ve seen historically where controlling information flow and destabilizing existing power structures often involves accepting or even intentionally causing certain kinds of damage.
As a legal scholar, I have to respectfully disagree with the notion that platform owners “own” user accounts as intellectual property. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of both IP law and the legal framework governing digital platforms.
User accounts are actually governed by contract law through Terms of Service agreements – they’re not “property” in the traditional sense at all. Think about it: these accounts contain our personal information, which is protected by privacy laws like GDPR and CCPA. These laws explicitly recognize that individuals, not platforms, have fundamental rights over their personal data.
The “IP ownership” argument falls apart under scrutiny. IP law protects creative works and inventions – a user account itself is neither. While platforms absolutely own their software and infrastructure, claiming ownership of individual accounts would be like a phone company claiming they own your phone number and identity because you use their service.
Courts have consistently rejected platform overreach in this area. Look at PhoneDog v. Kravitz (2011) where the court wouldn’t treat Twitter followers as company property. The platform-user relationship is clearly one of service provider and customer, not owner and property.
What platforms actually have is a LICENSE to manage and moderate accounts – a crucial distinction from ownership. This isn’t just legal theory – it’s reflected in most platforms’ own Terms of Service, which typically acknowledge user ownership while granting platforms specific rights to manage the service.
The idea that Musk says technology are platform property is outdated and incorrect. Modern digital rights frameworks, court decisions, and industry practices all point to accounts being digital extensions of user identity, managed through contracts, not platform-owned assets.
Treating accounts as platform property would also be terrible policy – it would stifle competition, violate privacy rights, and create massive power imbalances in the digital economy. Let’s be clear about what platforms are: service providers with specific rights and responsibilities, not owners of their users’ digital identities.