4 ms·

Twitter/X has lost its lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate

87 points by davidbarker 3y ago

toomuchtodo 3y ago
https://archive.today/LqNT9 https://archive.today/LqNT9 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67654013/x-corp-v-center-for-countering-digital-hate-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67654013/x-corp-v-cente... https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.416212/gov.uscourts.cand.416212.75.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.41...
cmsj 3y ago
You love to see it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
stavros 3y ago
Can someone summarize? This is the first I'm hearing of this case, and don't know what the lawsuit is about.
- olliej 3y ago
  Another case where people reported on post-musk twitter, and the free speech absolutist sued them because free speech doesn't cover criticism of Musk. I think this one was "after firing the teams responsible for taking down bad content, twitter stopped taking down bad content", so twitter/musk sued them claiming they had violated the CFAA (I can't recall if this suit also did the classic musk-ism of saying the report was bankrolled by competitors). The judge rightfully saw that there was no real CFAA claim, and the purpose of the lawsuit was to make them be quiet, and so dismissed it. Now to be clear, this is not a "twitter should moderate/not moderate" question. This lawsuit was twitter/musk saying "no one can report about what we are or are not doing", and is the exact reason for anti-SLAPP laws existing: defending a lawsuit, even a clearly BS one, can cost thousands of dollars even when you win. Hence anti-SLAPP laws mean that if you can show the lawsuit is BS, the lawsuit is thrown out, and the accuser must cover your legal fees.
  - vaidhy 3y ago
    Yes, there is also "bankrolled by foreign blah, blah" in the suit.
- vaidhy 3y ago
  Specifically, CCDH collected 9600+ tweets from 10 re-instated accounts. These accounts were banned originally. It showed its in reports that Musk/X is making millions in ad revenue through these hate speech accounts. Elon sued them for breach of contract saying they scraped the data while ToS disallows scraping and their breach of contract led to tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue since advertisers stopped advertising. There are a few other claims in similar vein. The judge ruled that the suit has no merit and Musk is claiming to recover reputational damages under the guise of breach of contract. He is also not allowed to amend this and file again. It is worth reading the judgement in entirety. It is well reasoned and written.
  - stavros 3y ago
    Thank you for the summary, I'll read the ruling. Elon doesn't look great.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe] More discussion on the dismissal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39819212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39819212
- jrussino 3y ago
  FWIW, that thread is flagged...
  - reaperman 3y ago
    Oddly I can't "vouch" for it either. Seems like a reasonable enough development for HN feed.
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - mr_toad 3y ago
    How ironic.
  - Lockal 3y ago
    Login-walled twitter link on HN, with personal opinion of random person: it's fine! Court decision link on HN: it's inappropriate!
midnight2 3y ago
[flagged]
- defrost 3y ago
  Fortuneately the off-Broadway Bond villain failed in this attempt to suppress free speech.
rsynnott 3y ago
I’ve long thought that if a company loses a case based on SLAPP or similar rules, it should be required to pay upfront the defence costs of anyone it subsequently sues, with the ability to reclaim if it actually wins. There really needs to be a greater deterrent to this sort of behaviour.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

87 points by davidbarker 3y ago

https://archive.today/LqNT9 https://archive.today/LqNT9 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67654013/x-corp-v-center-for-countering-digital-hate-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67654013/x-corp-v-cente... https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.416212/gov.uscourts.cand.416212.75.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.41...

cmsj 3y ago

You love to see it.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

stavros 3y ago

Can someone summarize? This is the first I'm hearing of this case, and don't know what the lawsuit is about.

olliej 3y ago
Another case where people reported on post-musk twitter, and the free speech absolutist sued them because free speech doesn't cover criticism of Musk. I think this one was "after firing the teams responsible for taking down bad content, twitter stopped taking down bad content", so twitter/musk sued them claiming they had violated the CFAA (I can't recall if this suit also did the classic musk-ism of saying the report was bankrolled by competitors). The judge rightfully saw that there was no real CFAA claim, and the purpose of the lawsuit was to make them be quiet, and so dismissed it. Now to be clear, this is not a "twitter should moderate/not moderate" question. This lawsuit was twitter/musk saying "no one can report about what we are or are not doing", and is the exact reason for anti-SLAPP laws existing: defending a lawsuit, even a clearly BS one, can cost thousands of dollars even when you win. Hence anti-SLAPP laws mean that if you can show the lawsuit is BS, the lawsuit is thrown out, and the accuser must cover your legal fees.
- vaidhy 3y ago
  Yes, there is also "bankrolled by foreign blah, blah" in the suit.
vaidhy 3y ago
Specifically, CCDH collected 9600+ tweets from 10 re-instated accounts. These accounts were banned originally. It showed its in reports that Musk/X is making millions in ad revenue through these hate speech accounts. Elon sued them for breach of contract saying they scraped the data while ToS disallows scraping and their breach of contract led to tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue since advertisers stopped advertising. There are a few other claims in similar vein. The judge ruled that the suit has no merit and Musk is claiming to recover reputational damages under the guise of breach of contract. He is also not allowed to amend this and file again. It is worth reading the judgement in entirety. It is well reasoned and written.
- stavros 3y ago
  Thank you for the summary, I'll read the ruling. Elon doesn't look great.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe] More discussion on the dismissal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39819212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39819212

jrussino 3y ago
FWIW, that thread is flagged...
- reaperman 3y ago
  Oddly I can't "vouch" for it either. Seems like a reasonable enough development for HN feed.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    [flagged]
- mr_toad 3y ago
  How ironic.
- Lockal 3y ago
  Login-walled twitter link on HN, with personal opinion of random person: it's fine! Court decision link on HN: it's inappropriate!

midnight2 3y ago

[flagged]

defrost 3y ago
Fortuneately the off-Broadway Bond villain failed in this attempt to suppress free speech.

rsynnott 3y ago

I’ve long thought that if a company loses a case based on SLAPP or similar rules, it should be required to pay upfront the defence costs of anyone it subsequently sues, with the ability to reclaim if it actually wins. There really needs to be a greater deterrent to this sort of behaviour.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]