Elmo to NPR - generate interactions for me or I’ll give your account to someone else.
Agile tenper tantrum!
Went from negging women to negging companies? What a douchebro
That article is bonkers. It’s easy to become inured to crazy shit out of Twitter such that nothing seems outlandish anymore, but threats to hijack handles is insane.
If I were an advertiser on Twitter, I’d be thinking even harder about ad spend. And If I were on the board of Tesla, I’d be calling a vote to get rid of Musk immediately.
I wonder what would happen if, every 29 days, NPR tweeted out a dot.
Or a poop emoji.
From the article:
“Yeah, I know that when we were together I insulted you and undermined your reputation, but I took it back when it looked as though a lot of people were getting mad at me about it, so why won’t you go out with me anymore? What’s your problem?”
I must say, though, that I will not be sorry if one of the few bright spots to be salvaged from this whole sorry shitshow is the emergence of the affectionate nickname “National Pumpkin Radio” for NPR. So sue me, it’s cute. 
In the meantime, I am feeling more and more relieved that I deactivated my Twitter account back in November. It was a pretty empty gesture because I hardly used it anyway, and I certainly didn’t have any prophecies about what was actually going to happen with Twitter, but I just felt that this was no longer a social medium that I wanted to be officially dealing with.
Not enough is made about how absolutely pathetic Musk’s emoji game is.
IKR? How would you make that silly joke and not at least put a pumpkin pic in the tweet? Sheesh, even Discourse lets us do pumpkin pics. 
Also, “fictional gourd-themed broadcaster” is a phrase that probably no NPR reporter imagined that they could ever in a million years be typing with reference to current events. It’s a good phrase, though.
A million years ago, when I was a writer for a business newspaper, if I’d had the opportunity to work “fictional gourd-themed broadcaster” into an article, I’d have called that a great day.
I wonder if NPR would have any recourse. The law does protect an entity’s name to some degree- for instance, I believe that you can’t cybersquat on coke.com and prevent coca-cola from having that domain. It would be interesting to see if the courts would extend such a protection to Twitter names, at least in cases where the real entity already has it.
I vote for toilet paper emoji 
Why would it? Twitter is a private club, they make the rules. They can do anything they want within the walls of their company barring a few areas where they run into explicit US law.
Back in the early, early days, one of the hidden perks of working at Twitter was there was a fairly lax policy for Twitter employees yanking vanity usernames that were considered abandoned.
It’s not a crime but it can be considered a breach of contract, since Twitter does have terms of use that cover this sort of thing. They do reserve the right to change their terms of use later, but until they do change, their existing terms are supposed to cover things.
That’s aside, of course, from the question of the wisdom of publicly advertising the fact their own word cannot be trusted and decisions seem to be impulsive and poorly considered, if they were even considered at all.
As I mentioned, US law does offer protections to one’s copyrights, trade name, etc. I am wondering whether those protections might apply here.
Suppose Coca-Cola were not on Twitter, but someone were impersonating them. Would Coca-Cola really have no recourse? I seem to recall in the early days of the internet people were scooping up company domain names and then trying to extort them. I believe that’s no longer allowed.
Again, I’m not saying they have recourse, I’m asking.
A domain name is different than a username on a private service. Ignoring the sock rules for a minute, I could create a username here on the SDMB as “CocaCola” and the coke company would have no legal recourse, no. Why would Twitter be any different?
In fact, there is an actual musical group (or DJ or whatever) whose name is Ellis Dee. They would have no legal recourse against me here on the SDMB.
There are terms of use that everybody has ostensibly agreed upon. Reneging on that is not a criminal offense but is still a sort of contractual violation.
Reneging on that agreement especially when money is involved (and it very much is in this case with all the API and blue checkmark nonsense) to arguably profit from NPRs well-known username (I mean, it’s just “NPR”) or to assign it to a different company to deliberately cause reputational damage to NPR is still not necessarily criminal but could be used in a lawsuit to allege real damages.
NPR would have a solid case for some sort of recourse, especially if Musk assigns the handle to somebody who then proceeds to put out real seeming but fake news stories under “NPR”
And, again, that’s not including the reputational damage of being known as untrustworthy and capricious, which is not often the greatest look for a company.
NPR doesn’t own the rights to the letters “NPR” exclusively, but they do have rights to that copyright within the realm of news organizations. I can create a company called “NPR” so long as it has nothing to do with news (e.g. a convenience store). If the new @NPR Twitter handle started acting like a news organization, then NPR would have a copyright case against them for creating consumer confusion.
IANAL, but it seems to me to be completely different. There is no history or plausible expectation that companies would participate in SDMB chats in their official capacity and under their trademark names. On Twitter this is routine, because it’s a major communications medium for entities of all kinds including businesses. So impersonation is potentially a real problem that could badly impact a company’s reputation, such as if Elmo started posting complete bullshit under the name of NPR, and I would think any such entity should have legal protection from that kind of abuse. Twitter as a business may be private, but as a communications channel its reach and its audience are very much public.
That’s my point. If whoever ends up with the handle puts out fake news stories, that’s potentially also Twitter on the hook for giving them that handle.
If Nachos Pizza & Redbull becomes popular enough, NPR could have a case for brand confusion. If they have an unsavory reputation, there could be a case for harm to an established brand.
That’s why the WWF became the WWE.