- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Elon Musk merging Twitter into X didn’t absolve X from child safety fine.
Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) remains on the hook for an approximately $400,000 fine after failing to respond to an Australia eSafety Commission 2023 inquiry, which largely sought to probe measures X is currently taking to combat an alleged proliferation of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on its platform.
To void the fine, X tried to persuade Australian Judge Michael Wheelahan that X had no obligation to comply with an Online Safety Act notice issued to Twitter because Twitter “ceased to exist” a few weeks after receiving the notice—when Musk merged the app into his company X Corp.
You must log in or register to comment.
So i committed a crime, i didn’t know if i change my name i could get out of it
Wait Elon Musk is using the soviet strategy
I thought he disliked the “woke communists”
I’m thinking Musk may be in a “Brewster’s Millions” situation, in which he needs to spend every penny he has and end up with absolutely no assets in order to win an even larger fortune.
If we’re really, really lucky, someone scammed him to think that he’d win a fortune, and after he’s lost everything he’ll discover there’s no fortune.
The fine was not written in red ink diagonally across the postage stamp. No countsy.
-Elon Musk
This reads like a sovcit defense.
Wheelahan summarized X’s argument as saying that “X Corp was not obliged to prepare any report in Twitter Inc’s place, as X Corp was not the same person as the provider to whom the notice was issued.”
Anyway, start charging interest. A lot. Backdated to October of last year.
“same person” eugh
I expect no less from this child
does this mean the twitter brand is up for grabs? anyone can start up a new website at twitter dot com? musk’s letting go of it completely?
I wish companies and people were held to the standards of their own arguments.
For example because X claimed they don’t owe anything because they changed their name from Twitter, any business dealing with X would legally be allowed to use the same argument.
Guys, I found how you can get rid of all your debt.
Thing is, that’s exactly how you do it as a capitalist.
Compartmentalise your businesses and ensure they’re registered so as to never come after your personal assets should they go bust.
Then, if the business fails and goes bust, shut it down, sack everyone, and a week later reopen in the same place with a slightly different name and rehire most of the same staff under the new company.
The new company is not in any way legally connected to the old one, and the one one’s debts are to be handled whatever administration firm took all that over, etc.
I’ve seen it happen first hand here in the UK, good example of why capitalists are scumbags that are above our laws.
lol he really went for the sovcit strats. fucking idiot.
He’s still going to deadname his daughter
Came here to say this. Dude routinely misgenders and deadnames his daughter and claims that she died from “the woke mind virus”, then he turns around and tries to pull this shit.
I would 100x the fucking fine just for trying that argument if I was the judge.
I’m not sure about Australia’s laws, but in the US, that could result in recusal of the judge on the grounds of bias.
that’s not really a problem if the judge simply changes their name
“I’m Judge jaXon now!”
Omw to max out credit cards and then change my name
Brilliant!
Had to double take to confirm it didn’t say they argued Australia doesn’t exist
It’s like the game you play with a baby where you put your hands over your face to hide.
