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.

  • Breezy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 hours ago

    So i committed a crime, i didn’t know if i change my name i could get out of it

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    5 hours ago

    The fine was not written in red ink diagonally across the postage stamp. No countsy.

    -Elon Musk

    • Obinice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.

  • affiliate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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?

  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

  • NABDad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • elliot_crane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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.

  • someguy3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    8 hours ago

    It’s like the game you play with a baby where you put your hands over your face to hide.

  • Mothra@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Had to double take to confirm it didn’t say they argued Australia doesn’t exist