How is it defamatory if it’s true?
This is the default law action from Musk these days. Also, a nonsensical law suite is enough to shut a big newspaper sometimes. The governing Liberal Democratic Party in Japan successfully silenced a news organization by starting a 1 billion yen (or some amount) nonsense law suit. Hell, they control the supreme court judges also.
Did you read the article? X is alleging that media matters had to manipulate their platform in order for it to generate these ads next to the hateful accounts. According to their records, those ads only appeared one time, for the user account associated with Media Matters. This supports their theory that manipulation was required.
I guess we’ll have to wait for the court case to find out who’s right. But immediately assuming the X lawsuit has no merits just because you don’t like Elon Musk is a bit disingenuous.
Unless I’m missing it, nowhere in the article or elsewhere did they say that ads only appeared one time.
They said that ads were served for one particular account 50 times (and presumably have data to back that up but I’m not inclined to give them benefit of the doubt). And that media matters had scrolled/refreshed a bunch of times to see whose ads would be displayed. Which seems reasonable to me.
Then TwitX made some claim about “50 out of 50 billion ads served” or something, which is a disingenuous comparison. This was one example of a problem. No one claimed it was the only example, so why would anyone compare against all ads served anywhere?
I agree with your point in general, but I have a hard time applying it here. Unless the lawsuit alleges that MM hacked into Twitter or doctored the screenshots, then the core claim of the MM report “Twitter served ad Y next to post Z” is not under dispute. If the claim is that refreshing a page is malicious, then I don’t think we need to wait to call the lawsuit malicious.
I agree that the core claim of the MM report is not under dispute. But take a look at their article now that you know the context around how those ads were generated.
I don’t know if it’s defamatory, but you have to agree that it comes off as a bit disingenuous based on the new info from X. Of course that info from X could be BS, which is why I said we’ll have to wait for the court case to know for sure.
He’s gonna bail out before this goes into discovery. This is a SLAPP suit if I ever saw one.
X claimed Media Matters “manipulated” the social media platform by using accounts that exclusively followed accounts for major brands or users known to produce fringe content and “resorted to endlessly scrolling and refreshing” the feed until it found ads next to extremist posts.
Media Matters’ report misrepresented the typical experience on X “with the intention of harming X and its business”, the company said in the lawsuit.
Yes exactly. They proved that advertisements can and will be shown alongside objectionable content, and that there are no protections against that. Them conducting a test is not “manufacturing images”. X arguing the vast majority of users won’t experience that is merely because the majority of users won’t browse that content - but those who do will see any adverts alongside it.
This is a frivolous lawsuit from a company that will probably be gone before the suit is even heard. Twitter is worth barely more than its debt at this point - and that’s ignoring things like not paying rent for their offices.
Kill the messenger!
Remember when Musk sued Top Gear for ‘manipulation’ and lost?
