• maino82@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Spiro’s letter complains about Meta hiring some of the many workers who were laid off or resigned from Twitter in the eight months since Musk bought the company.

    “Over the past year, Meta has hired dozens of former Twitter employees… these employees had and continue to have access to Twitter’s trade secrets and other highly confidential information,” Spiro wrote in the letter to Zuckerberg. The workers, he alleged, “owe ongoing obligations to Twitter,” and many “have improperly retained Twitter documents and electronic devices.”

    “We fired a bunch of people and you hired them to build the same thing they built for us! Not fair not fair!”

    • dvlsg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      The workers, he alleged, “owe ongoing obligations to Twitter,”

      What a strange argument. If I work for someone, and they fire me, I still have ongoing obligations to them?

      Great, I’ll expect my paycheck to be deposited as usual, then.

      • kofe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m curious if it’s referring to NDAs maybe? That would imply some form of obligation to maintain secrets I guess. Otherwise yeah, makes no sense to me

  • Raphael@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m rooting for a long drawn out fight.

    Wait… that sounded really american, didn’t it. Maybe I should ship lawyers to both sides.

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    An expensive legal campaign is yet another excuse for Twitter to go bankrupt that ignores the fact that the leveraged buyout was already a death sentence - like almost every other.

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s like watching two people you hate fight, Wait it’s actually exactly that.
      Anyway, I’m not rooting for anyone to win, I just want to see a good bloody match where both sides get some good hits in and lose some teeth.

  • totallynotarobot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Imagine my disappointment that this does not appear to be the slap fight originally proposed, just in a courtroom. Legal battle booooring.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, I’m all for this 🍿

      Everyone’s a winner! So long as they’re in the spectator area.

  • answersplease77@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Was Threads behind Twitter’s login close off and server attack or whatever the heck happened to it? It completely killed Twitter

    • body_by_make@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, many suspect that’s caused by Musk not paying his Google cloud bill and his services being downgraded as the first step Google takes when they want a customer to pay them.

      Musk put up the login only view of Twitter and immediately caused Twitter’s own DDoS because that screen would keep trying to load tweets even though it couldn’t, repeatedly and very quickly.

      Musk also blamed this action on data scrapers, but people see the timing of this as too coincidental for it not to be the Google cloud thing.

      Musk also backed off when he realized Twitter was disappearing from Google as it could no longer index Tweets.

  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So maybe this is why they used ActivityPub. Plausible deniability and accelerated development. Maybe this has nothing to do with the Fediverse. 🤔

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Really, the only way X Corp. has any way to get Meta to stop would be on anti-trust grounds, which would be hilarious.