4 ms·

IANAL, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me: either Twitter served up an ad next to the objectional content or it didn't. A number of the named advertisers cla

IANAL, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me: either Twitter served up an ad next to the objectional content or it didn't. A number of the named advertisers claim to have zero tolerance policies when it comes to their brand being placed adjacent to antisemitic content, and so even one misplaced ad should and would be enough to cause an exodus under that policy. At the end of the day twitter and its algorithms control what ads get served regardless of how abnormal the user behavior was that triggered the algorithm to do what it did. Ultimately it's an engineering failure on twitter's part.

andsoitis 3y ago
What I have failed to find is a screenshot of said ads placed against objectionable content. All the articles I have found just talk about it but don't show it. Linda Yaccarino writes: https://twitter.com/lindayaX/status/1726747531843915965 https://twitter.com/lindayaX/status/1726747531843915965 Show, don't tell.
- aw1621107 3y ago
  The original article has screenshots: https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-x-has-been-placing-ads-apple-bravo-ibm-oracle https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemit...
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    Thank you. Several of those seem less like ads placed against any specific post, but instead alongside in a stream of posts.
    - gingerrr 3y ago
      That's a meaningless distinction to advertisers and in the context of this lawsuit. Were brand ads placed colocated with hateful content in a user feed? That's the only question that matters to advertisers at least. Attribution doesn't change the damage to their brand. And even this lawsuit doesn't challenge that fact that the answer is "yes", ads did get placed next to hateful content - the lawsuit just claims results were skewed by gaming ad targeting and so aren't representative.
- tedunangst 3y ago
  If I'm an advertiser, why would I want to be paying for my ads to appear to unauthentic users? Lawsuit aside, how is this supposed to reassure advertisers? "Don't worry, we only showed your ad to fake users." Ok, thanks.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 3y ago
IAAL - this is possibly the dumbest complaint i've read in a while. Media matters claimed that advertisements were shown next to fringe content. This complaint literally admits that happened, but claims it is somehow defamation because it only happened to media matters. It doesn't matter if media matters did it in bad faith or not, the fact that it's true would still be a defense. Even if you recast the complaint as "media matters claims we showed it like this to users", it would still be true because media matters was a user. As an aside, they also point out it was in fact shown to some other user in the case of apple ;) So the whole hullaboo X makes is totally self-defeating - they admit it was shown to a user, and in the case of Apple, a user besides media matters. "They defamed me by claiming i murdered someone, and in fact, i only murdered one person - there are 7.99999 billion people i didn't murder!" So, X spends pages in this complaint talking about how it's defamation, and then, because they know they don't have any leg to stand on there, they don't even make out a count of defamation. The closest they come is business disparagement. Otherwise it's some weak interference claims. The first inteference claim doesn't even state a claim - it doesn't claim any unlawful conduct, which is a required element. It also doesn't claim any intentional contract existed, and the defendant's actions would have to be intentionally targeted at such a contract. The business disparagement rather than defamation is basically an attempt to avoid an Anti-SLAPP response (which will happen anyway), and a bad one at that. The third interference claim is the closest to making out a real claim, but also misses pieces. This reads like a rant in lawsuit form.
- retrocryptid 3y ago
  "This reads like a rant in lawsuit form." Well... welcome to Texas.

andsoitis 3y ago

What I have failed to find is a screenshot of said ads placed against objectionable content. All the articles I have found just talk about it but don't show it. Linda Yaccarino writes: https://twitter.com/lindayaX/status/1726747531843915965 https://twitter.com/lindayaX/status/1726747531843915965 Show, don't tell.

aw1621107 3y ago
The original article has screenshots: https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-x-has-been-placing-ads-apple-bravo-ibm-oracle https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemit...
- andsoitis 3y ago
  Thank you. Several of those seem less like ads placed against any specific post, but instead alongside in a stream of posts.
  - gingerrr 3y ago
    That's a meaningless distinction to advertisers and in the context of this lawsuit. Were brand ads placed colocated with hateful content in a user feed? That's the only question that matters to advertisers at least. Attribution doesn't change the damage to their brand. And even this lawsuit doesn't challenge that fact that the answer is "yes", ads did get placed next to hateful content - the lawsuit just claims results were skewed by gaming ad targeting and so aren't representative.
tedunangst 3y ago
If I'm an advertiser, why would I want to be paying for my ads to appear to unauthentic users? Lawsuit aside, how is this supposed to reassure advertisers? "Don't worry, we only showed your ad to fake users." Ok, thanks.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

DannyBee 3y ago

IAAL - this is possibly the dumbest complaint i've read in a while. Media matters claimed that advertisements were shown next to fringe content. This complaint literally admits that happened, but claims it is somehow defamation because it only happened to media matters. It doesn't matter if media matters did it in bad faith or not, the fact that it's true would still be a defense. Even if you recast the complaint as "media matters claims we showed it like this to users", it would still be true because media matters was a user. As an aside, they also point out it was in fact shown to some other user in the case of apple ;) So the whole hullaboo X makes is totally self-defeating - they admit it was shown to a user, and in the case of Apple, a user besides media matters. "They defamed me by claiming i murdered someone, and in fact, i only murdered one person - there are 7.99999 billion people i didn't murder!" So, X spends pages in this complaint talking about how it's defamation, and then, because they know they don't have any leg to stand on there, they don't even make out a count of defamation. The closest they come is business disparagement. Otherwise it's some weak interference claims. The first inteference claim doesn't even state a claim - it doesn't claim any unlawful conduct, which is a required element. It also doesn't claim any intentional contract existed, and the defendant's actions would have to be intentionally targeted at such a contract. The business disparagement rather than defamation is basically an attempt to avoid an Anti-SLAPP response (which will happen anyway), and a bad one at that. The third interference claim is the closest to making out a real claim, but also misses pieces. This reads like a rant in lawsuit form.

retrocryptid 3y ago
"This reads like a rant in lawsuit form." Well... welcome to Texas.