3 ms·

> 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

> 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?
    - dpkirchner 3y ago
      The lawsuit doesn't allege that Media Matters lied. Twitter/X (effectively) admit that the report was accurate, but that Media Matters followed users that post objectionable content and saw ads by companies that probably don't want to be associated with nazis et al, and reported on that factual outcome.
      - valar_m 3y ago
        >The lawsuit doesn't allege that Media Matters lied. Incorrect. For example, from the complaint[0]: > As extensively explained above, these statements made by Defendant Media Matters were false. Though to be fair, the lawsuit never bothers to explain how they're false or offer any actual evidence to that effect. It doesn't even attempt to cite the legal elements of any of the claims that are listed, nor does it establish any facts that one could even tangentially connect to the claims asserted. I have a law degree (though I don't currently practice law). I doubt this lawsuit will survive a motion for summary judgment. I would even go so far as to expect that Elon/Twitter will probably be paying for Media Matters' attorney's fees for the utterly frivolous nature of the complaint. [0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.383454/gov.uscourts.txnd.383454.1.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...
        dpkirchner 3y ago
        I think the key phrase in this document is: > leaving the false impression that these pairings are anything but what they actually are: manufactured, inorganic, and extraordinarily rare. Those last two terms mean they're admitting Media Matters' allegations are true, even if they're uncommon.
    - jrflowers 3y ago
      > You're saying that the lawsuit is meritorious, while conceding that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit? Am I missing something? No. Twitter is suing under the “who cares”, “shut up” and “no u” doctrine, which you can do in courts that do not have anti-SLAPP rules in place. >The company filed its lawsuit in Texas, which is neither its nor Media Matters’ primary place of business. As legal blogger Ken White noted, a Texas filing protects X from claims that it filed a strategic lawsuit against public participation (or SLAPP), something it might face in its home base of California. https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23970274/x-elon-musk-media-matters-lawsuit-nazi-ads-filed https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23970274/x-elon-musk-med...

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?
  - dpkirchner 3y ago
    The lawsuit doesn't allege that Media Matters lied. Twitter/X (effectively) admit that the report was accurate, but that Media Matters followed users that post objectionable content and saw ads by companies that probably don't want to be associated with nazis et al, and reported on that factual outcome.
    - valar_m 3y ago
      >The lawsuit doesn't allege that Media Matters lied. Incorrect. For example, from the complaint[0]: > As extensively explained above, these statements made by Defendant Media Matters were false. Though to be fair, the lawsuit never bothers to explain how they're false or offer any actual evidence to that effect. It doesn't even attempt to cite the legal elements of any of the claims that are listed, nor does it establish any facts that one could even tangentially connect to the claims asserted. I have a law degree (though I don't currently practice law). I doubt this lawsuit will survive a motion for summary judgment. I would even go so far as to expect that Elon/Twitter will probably be paying for Media Matters' attorney's fees for the utterly frivolous nature of the complaint. [0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.383454/gov.uscourts.txnd.383454.1.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...
      - dpkirchner 3y ago
        I think the key phrase in this document is: > leaving the false impression that these pairings are anything but what they actually are: manufactured, inorganic, and extraordinarily rare. Those last two terms mean they're admitting Media Matters' allegations are true, even if they're uncommon.
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    > You're saying that the lawsuit is meritorious, while conceding that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit? Am I missing something? No. Twitter is suing under the “who cares”, “shut up” and “no u” doctrine, which you can do in courts that do not have anti-SLAPP rules in place. >The company filed its lawsuit in Texas, which is neither its nor Media Matters’ primary place of business. As legal blogger Ken White noted, a Texas filing protects X from claims that it filed a strategic lawsuit against public participation (or SLAPP), something it might face in its home base of California. https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23970274/x-elon-musk-media-matters-lawsuit-nazi-ads-filed https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23970274/x-elon-musk-med...