X's legal filing in the InfoWars bankruptcy case is both batshit crazy and also what you'd expect. It asserts that X owns every account, can do whatever it wants with them, and can inject itself into legal proceedings that have nothing to do with it.
This is why it's incredibly important that people invest in platforms that they own, and move toward federated/decentralized/portable, noncorporate social media as rapidly as possible
@jasonkoebler One thing taught in law schools is that "property" and "ownership" are actually a bundle of rights and that those rights can be separated out.
The "ownership" being claimed in the bankruptcy of Jones and Infowars is the right to control content posting/removal on Twitter, not who "owns" the computers and databases (which are clearly owned by the Twitter Corporation.)
The assets to be allocated in the bankruptcy proceeding are those rights to post/remove content under a given Twitter name. Nobody is asking for Twitter's computers, software, or databases.
The court should consider whether th attorneys of Twitter ought to be sanctioned for making intentionally disruptive motions that even a first year law student can see are unfounded.
I would add that Twitter has various contractual powers under its terms of service, but that would be a separate contract issue outside of allocation of assets in bankruptcy.
Jason Koebler
Karl Auerbach