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.

Is there a link or study for the replicated results? I'd like to see it.

Quite the stretch there bud, from a very biased Techdirt none-the-less.

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.

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.

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.

Don't they? Well they all did at once after the relatively tiny report.

Well anyway, let's all continue speculating...

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.

More speculation, that's why you used the word "probably".

Elon was already in trouble with large companies for his anti-semetic "This is the actual truth" post when Media Matters made their post a few days later.

Elon (correctly) realized that he could shift focus away from his anti-semitism and toward Media Matters by trying to make the scandal about them instead of himself.

It's sad how easy it is to manipulate the media when you have an army of useful idiots.

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.

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

> 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-...

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.

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.

>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?

> 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-med...

> which you can do in courts that do not have anti-SLAPP rules in place.

No, this is incorrect. I believe you're unintentionally conflating two things. Not having an anti-SLAPP law just means that Media Matters won't have the luxury of quickly striking the complaint before having to respond to it.

It does not mean that vexatious litigants are free to file a lawsuit without making actual legal claims recognized by the courts.

Media Matters can (and will) still file a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, and will almost certainly prevail based on the clear deficiency of the complaint which doesn't even bother to cite the legal elements of the three claims it lists.

I like that you say that they cannot file a suit without making actual legal claims in the sentence before you say that the lawsuit that was filed didn’t even bother to cite the legal elements of the claims.

When I say that they can't file a suit without making actual legal claims, I obviously meant that the suit would be dismissed. Anyone can go down to the court clerk's office and pay the fee to submit a court filing. There is no mechanism to review whether a filing is frivolous before it gets filed with the clerk.

So yes, my statement was correct, you just aren't familiar with how it works.

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.

>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.38...

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.

> 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.