X Corp. vs. Media Matters for America et al.(plainsite.org)
plainsite.org
X Corp. vs. Media Matters for America et al.
https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/52oouzfga/texas-northern-district-court/x-corp-v-media-matters-for-america-et-al/
30 comments
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.
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.
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.
"This reads like a rant in lawsuit form."
Well... welcome to Texas.
Well... welcome to Texas.
[deleted]
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
Show, don't tell.
Linda Yaccarino writes: https://twitter.com/lindayaX/status/1726747531843915965
Show, don't tell.
The original article has screenshots: https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemit...
Thank you. Several of those seem less like ads placed against any specific post, but instead alongside in a stream of posts.
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.
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.
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.
Lawsuit aside, how is this supposed to reassure advertisers? "Don't worry, we only showed your ad to fake users." Ok, thanks.
At this point, I would think an ad from IBM/Apple/etc. showing up next to a post of Elon's would be enough to prove advertisements have been placed next to a known anti-Semite.
But that's just me.
But that's just me.
Would you be willing to share some specific reference or example where Elon Musk is anti-Semitic?
I invite others to comment. I have heard that claim made baselessly by some, though perhaps others can provide a firm basis.
I invite others to comment. I have heard that claim made baselessly by some, though perhaps others can provide a firm basis.
> Agreeing with an antisemitic post on his social media platform X, Elon Musk endorsed the claim that Jewish communities push “hatred against Whites.”
> An X post Wednesday afternoon said: “Jewish communties (sic) have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.” The post also referenced “hordes of minorities” flooding Western countries, a popular antisemitic conspiracy theory.
> In response, Musk said: “You have said the actual truth.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/media/elon-musk-antisemitism-...
> An X post Wednesday afternoon said: “Jewish communties (sic) have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.” The post also referenced “hordes of minorities” flooding Western countries, a popular antisemitic conspiracy theory.
> In response, Musk said: “You have said the actual truth.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/media/elon-musk-antisemitism-...
Thank you for the reference, that’s very helpful.
Wonderful world when the worlds richest man starts using the legal system to spend his “enemies” into oblivion.
Well... that's the American Way. Rich people can do what they want. Poor people are screwed. People in the middle have various privileges.
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment, but it is nothing new. Peter Theil did the same to Gawker via Hulk Hogan a few years back.
Yes I agree the precedent was set there. I didn't like that either but this feels like a different scale of things at a more fraught time.
Other discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38357176
Scroll down for screenshots of the ads for the mentioned major brands alongside nazi content: https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemit...
What would you recommend in this case? MacBook Pro. Most of the time, it’s plugged in because I use it at my desk, so why would I use the battery unnecessarily when the power outlet is right there, and the laptop is stationary. But that means that the battery is “fully charged” most of the time. Is that bad? Would it be better if it didn’t go above 80% most of the time?
I'm not a fan of X/Elon/hate, but ads shown at search page with hate word shouldn't be a big problem. If it should be considered to a serious problem, every service operator with search feature (even without UGC) need to check very precisely whether the user input is hate or not.
This means that they'll have to settle, or both parties will need to reveal their relevant algorithms (for ad placement and detection), something they're likely to want to avoid.
Courtesy of the "free speech absolutist".
Demand $100000
Why sue for billions when you could sue for dr evil pinkie to mouth hundreds of thousands?
LMAO:
Media Matters therefore resorted to endlessly scrolling and refreshing its unrepresentative, hand selected feed, generating between 13 and 15 more times advertisements per hour than viewed by the average X user repeating this inauthentic activity until it finally received pages containing the result it wanted: controversial content next to X's largest advertiser's paid posts
Why sue for billions when you could sue for dr evil pinkie to mouth hundreds of thousands?
LMAO:
Media Matters therefore resorted to endlessly scrolling and refreshing its unrepresentative, hand selected feed, generating between 13 and 15 more times advertisements per hour than viewed by the average X user repeating this inauthentic activity until it finally received pages containing the result it wanted: controversial content next to X's largest advertiser's paid posts
AKA: caught X violating their explicit contract to never serve their ads next to that content?
"Your honor, the prosecution had to dig through thousands of transactions to find the one where I embezzled money!"
"Your honor, the prosecution had to dig through thousands of transactions to find the one where I embezzled money!"
Even one instance is sufficient, right? So, is it ok if one in 15 users see this kind of ad?
If I were to do a performance test, I do not run one request through and claim it is representational. I do a large test and test at 99th percentile. No one claims that since I ran many requests, my tests are invalid.
You are reaching out to find a bright spot.
If I were to do a performance test, I do not run one request through and claim it is representational. I do a large test and test at 99th percentile. No one claims that since I ran many requests, my tests are invalid.
You are reaching out to find a bright spot.
I don’t understand. So they did get “controversial content”.
What’s the argument then?
Further, how is this not free speech anyways.
What’s the argument then?
Further, how is this not free speech anyways.
Right, this sounds like perfectly normal behavior when you want to check whether any ad appears next to any controversial content.
of course they would refresh and scroll a lot.
of course they would refresh and scroll a lot.
So ... less than the amount of adverts served to 20 average users then?
On a platform supposed serving "millions" ..
That's, uhhh, at least 50,000 instances of IBM adverts next to Nazi hatespeech per million users per hour?
That's probably waaay to much for the company founded by Herman Hollerith and his whacky punch cards so loved by the Reich.
On a platform supposed serving "millions" ..
That's, uhhh, at least 50,000 instances of IBM adverts next to Nazi hatespeech per million users per hour?
That's probably waaay to much for the company founded by Herman Hollerith and his whacky punch cards so loved by the Reich.