5 ms·

In this case it was specifically intentionally misleading (something they have logs to prove), and weaponized against the business of X itself. Clearly differe

In this case it was specifically intentionally misleading (something they have logs to prove), and weaponized against the business of X itself. Clearly different from some random internet person saying something controversial or unpopular.

davidw 3y ago
People have replicated the results. Which isn't surprising, given how much trash content that place has these days. Also: does anyone think those big accounts just up and left after one shoestring organization published something? They most likely replicated the results themselves.
- theultdev 3y ago
  Yes you can replicate it by following very controversial accounts and business accounts and scrolling a lot until you find an ad and a controversial statement beside each other, as the logs show they did. It doesn't represent an actual experience though, it's deliberate and misleading since that curation was left out of the report.
  - davidw 3y ago
    Giant companies like Apple don't just do something like that on a complete whim based on a report from a relatively tiny organization. Probably also has something to do with the kinds of ugly stuff the owner of Twitter has been boosting lately.
    - theultdev 3y ago
      Don't they? Well they all did at once after the relatively tiny report. Well anyway, let's all continue speculating...
      - davidw 3y ago
        It turns out large companies don't like to see their brand near hateful things and they were probably able to verify that internally. Apple has quite a few more resources than Media Matters.
        theultdev 3y ago
        More speculation, that's why you used the word "probably".
- ecommerceguy 3y ago
  Is there a link or study for the replicated results? I'd like to see it.
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/27/elons-censorial-lawsuit-against-media-matters-inspiring-many-more-people-to-find-extwitter-ads-on-awful-content/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/27/elons-censorial-lawsuit-...
    - ecommerceguy 3y ago
      Quite the stretch there bud, from a very biased Techdirt none-the-less.
      - mdhb 3y ago
        You could make an actual argument with real points that people could consider and evaluate rather than pretending like everyone else is an idiot and you have some grand truth that is simultaneously so obvious that you don’t need to state it and is somehow something that nobody else has a clue what you’re talking about.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
andybak 3y ago
Feels rather like he is arguing on a technicality. I've seen tons of awful extremist content recently with ads next to it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ajross 3y ago
> In this case it was specifically intentionally misleading (something they have logs to prove) No such logs have been produced, FWIW. They made some vague claims in the original suit, but haven't backed it up. Broadly the claim amounts to: Media Matters created burner accounts that follow a bunch of nazis, racists, and other hateful accounts, and did it so that they could embarrass X when it got served ads for Disney products or whatever. And, maybe that's true. Media Matters is an in-the-trenches democratic political organ, and Musk has coded himself conservative in his current incarnation. He's an enemy, and they're going to go after him. That's just politics. But I don't see how you get from there to damages. It's certainly not libel; Media Matters did, after all, tell the truth. Nor is it fraud. X really did serve the ads, and the content really was hateful. Anyone else following those hate accounts would get the same content, Media Matters didn't "hack the algorithm", they just followed a lot of evil nonsense.
valar_m 3y ago
You're making a lot of claims ITT about the Media Matters case. Do you have sources for those claims? I haven't noticed you posting any sources to back up any of your claims. If you're going to make a factual assertion, it helps to offer a source for others to verify that you aren't just making it up or parroting something that you didn't verify.
jrflowers 3y ago
> In this case it was specifically intentionally misleading Exactly. What people don’t seem to realize is that neo-Nazi content is allowed, and there is not a extant mechanism for Twitter advertisers to make sure that their ads do not appear next to that allowed neo-Nazi content — this is why Twitter verified that fact in their lawsuit. The lawsuit is meritorious because while there was no malfunction on Twitter’s part, they contend that accepting advertisers’ money and occasionally showing it next to neo-Nazi content simply isn’t that big of a deal. The misleading part is introducing the idea that advertisers should expect that not to happen. I look forward to further lawsuits against users such as these https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/27/elons-censorial-lawsuit-against-media-matters-inspiring-many-more-people-to-find-extwitter-ads-on-awful-content/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/27/elons-censorial-lawsuit-...
- davidw 3y ago
  I'm a bit confused by your comment, because the link shows that they were indeed showing 'bad' content, but you say the lawsuit is 'meritorious' ie having merit.
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    The lawsuit doesn’t contend that the reporting is inaccurate, the complaint hinges on it being correct. Twitter is suing under the “who cares” and “shut up” doctrine.
    - valar_m 3y ago
      >The lawsuit doesn’t contend that the reporting is inaccurate, the complaint hinges on it being correct. This seems contradictory. You're saying that the lawsuit doesn't say the report is inaccurate, but rather that it's not correct? Is your comment based on a distinction between the words accurate/inaccurate and correct/incorrect? >Twitter is suing under the “who cares” and “shut up” doctrine. You're saying that the lawsuit is meritorious, while conceding that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit? Am I missing something?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

davidw 3y ago

People have replicated the results. Which isn't surprising, given how much trash content that place has these days. Also: does anyone think those big accounts just up and left after one shoestring organization published something? They most likely replicated the results themselves.

theultdev 3y ago
Yes you can replicate it by following very controversial accounts and business accounts and scrolling a lot until you find an ad and a controversial statement beside each other, as the logs show they did. It doesn't represent an actual experience though, it's deliberate and misleading since that curation was left out of the report.
- davidw 3y ago
  Giant companies like Apple don't just do something like that on a complete whim based on a report from a relatively tiny organization. Probably also has something to do with the kinds of ugly stuff the owner of Twitter has been boosting lately.
  - theultdev 3y ago
    Don't they? Well they all did at once after the relatively tiny report. Well anyway, let's all continue speculating...
    - davidw 3y ago
      It turns out large companies don't like to see their brand near hateful things and they were probably able to verify that internally. Apple has quite a few more resources than Media Matters.
      - theultdev 3y ago
        More speculation, that's why you used the word "probably".
ecommerceguy 3y ago
Is there a link or study for the replicated results? I'd like to see it.
- jrflowers 3y ago
  https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/27/elons-censorial-lawsuit-against-media-matters-inspiring-many-more-people-to-find-extwitter-ads-on-awful-content/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/27/elons-censorial-lawsuit-...
  - ecommerceguy 3y ago
    Quite the stretch there bud, from a very biased Techdirt none-the-less.
    - mdhb 3y ago
      You could make an actual argument with real points that people could consider and evaluate rather than pretending like everyone else is an idiot and you have some grand truth that is simultaneously so obvious that you don’t need to state it and is somehow something that nobody else has a clue what you’re talking about.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

andybak 3y ago

Feels rather like he is arguing on a technicality. I've seen tons of awful extremist content recently with ads next to it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ajross 3y ago

> In this case it was specifically intentionally misleading (something they have logs to prove) No such logs have been produced, FWIW. They made some vague claims in the original suit, but haven't backed it up. Broadly the claim amounts to: Media Matters created burner accounts that follow a bunch of nazis, racists, and other hateful accounts, and did it so that they could embarrass X when it got served ads for Disney products or whatever. And, maybe that's true. Media Matters is an in-the-trenches democratic political organ, and Musk has coded himself conservative in his current incarnation. He's an enemy, and they're going to go after him. That's just politics. But I don't see how you get from there to damages. It's certainly not libel; Media Matters did, after all, tell the truth. Nor is it fraud. X really did serve the ads, and the content really was hateful. Anyone else following those hate accounts would get the same content, Media Matters didn't "hack the algorithm", they just followed a lot of evil nonsense.

valar_m 3y ago

You're making a lot of claims ITT about the Media Matters case. Do you have sources for those claims? I haven't noticed you posting any sources to back up any of your claims. If you're going to make a factual assertion, it helps to offer a source for others to verify that you aren't just making it up or parroting something that you didn't verify.

jrflowers 3y ago

> In this case it was specifically intentionally misleading Exactly. What people don’t seem to realize is that neo-Nazi content is allowed, and there is not a extant mechanism for Twitter advertisers to make sure that their ads do not appear next to that allowed neo-Nazi content — this is why Twitter verified that fact in their lawsuit. The lawsuit is meritorious because while there was no malfunction on Twitter’s part, they contend that accepting advertisers’ money and occasionally showing it next to neo-Nazi content simply isn’t that big of a deal. The misleading part is introducing the idea that advertisers should expect that not to happen. I look forward to further lawsuits against users such as these https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/27/elons-censorial-lawsuit-against-media-matters-inspiring-many-more-people-to-find-extwitter-ads-on-awful-content/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/27/elons-censorial-lawsuit-...

davidw 3y ago
I'm a bit confused by your comment, because the link shows that they were indeed showing 'bad' content, but you say the lawsuit is 'meritorious' ie having merit.
- jrflowers 3y ago
  The lawsuit doesn’t contend that the reporting is inaccurate, the complaint hinges on it being correct. Twitter is suing under the “who cares” and “shut up” doctrine.
  - valar_m 3y ago
    >The lawsuit doesn’t contend that the reporting is inaccurate, the complaint hinges on it being correct. This seems contradictory. You're saying that the lawsuit doesn't say the report is inaccurate, but rather that it's not correct? Is your comment based on a distinction between the words accurate/inaccurate and correct/incorrect? >Twitter is suing under the “who cares” and “shut up” doctrine. You're saying that the lawsuit is meritorious, while conceding that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit? Am I missing something?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]