Thoughts on social media sites? UPDATE: Apple, IBM, Disney, etc. stopped advertising on Twitter - Musk suing

[Cyclonepride]

You're doing a great job of dodging how any of this is illegal, or gives him ground to sue with.

If they created a scenario, which can be reliably recreated, and told us the results of that scenario -- what exactly did they do wrong? Twitter isn't entitled to anyone else's advert money. Those companies can do as they please with the information given to them. Nobody was coerced to do anything here and the activity itself wasn't illegal, nor falsified.

I don't care about Twitter nor the advertisers nor even Media Matters. I want someone to explain why this is a serious case submitted in good faith, because from the evidence I see so far, it's not. It's a bad faith attempt at attacking Media Matters back for what they reported.

You don't even have to take it from me -- why haven't any of the other companies who pulled their ads, and investigated these issues, came out and said it's false and they'll be resuming ad purchases?

Let’s say that I am a car critic with a history of hostility toward a particular brand.

I review one of their models under extraordinary circumstances that would be extremely unusual for a typical consumer to encounter.

I then highlight the failures of that vehicle without mentioning that it was tested during an endurance race in Death Valley.

Willful deception with an intent to inflict harm, which would be unlikely be considered protected speech.

 

[3TrueFans]

Let’s say that I am a car critic with a history of hostility toward a particular brand.

I review one of their models under extraordinary circumstances that would be extremely unusual for a typical consumer to encounter.

I then highlight the failures of that vehicle without mentioning that it was tested during an endurance race in Death Valley.

Willful deception with an intent to inflict harm, which would be unlikely be considered protected speech.

So in this analogy the equivalent of doing an "endurance race in Death Valley" is having a twitter account that follows racists and also companies?

Again, the claim from Twitter's CEO was brands are protected from showing up exactly where the report found them.

 

[Rabbuk]

So in this analogy the equivalent of doing an "endurance race in Death Valley" is having a twitter account that follows racists and also companies?

Again, the claim from Twitter's CEO was brands are protected from showing up exactly where the report found them.

I'd think a brand could be justified in saying they don't want to be advertising on a platform that has so many nazis regardless of whether they're Ads are being put by their content.

 

[Cyclonepride]

So in this analogy the equivalent of doing an "endurance race in Death Valley" is having a twitter account that follows racists and also companies?

Again, the claim from Twitter's CEO was brands are protected from showing up exactly where the report found them.

It is having only racists and large companies (and something to do with accounts under 30 days that I didn’t quite catch) and that’s it. If there are any other real accounts among the millions of accounts on Twitter with that setup, I would be shocked

 

[3TrueFans]

It is having only racists and large companies (and something to do with accounts under 30 days that I didn’t quite catch) and that’s it. If there are any other real accounts among the millions of accounts on Twitter, I would be shocked

So Twitter's algorithm shows these ads to people that only follow racists and companies, which is something they said wouldn't happen.

The report doesn't say anything about that experience being typical, which is what you and Musk seem to be saying, just that it happens.

 

[Bigman38]

It is having only racists and large companies (and something to do with accounts under 30 days that I didn’t quite catch) and that’s it. If there are any other real accounts among the millions of accounts on Twitter with that setup, I would be shocked

No, now we're to the "allegedly" part. Everyone agrees that twitter is placing these big name brands next to the garbage they don't moderate.

A media company doing the most obvious thing I can imagine, and instantly disproving Twitter's claims is hardly a case for that being the only scenario.

 

[MeowingCows]

Let’s say that I am a car critic with a history of hostility toward a particular brand.

I review one of their models under extraordinary circumstances that would be extremely unusual for a typical consumer to encounter.

I then highlight the failures of that vehicle without mentioning that it was tested during an endurance race in Death Valley.

Willful deception with an intent to inflict harm, which would be unlikely be considered protected speech.

What a terrible comparison.

Media Matters laid out the scenario which led to producing these results. They set out to disprove statements made by Twitter. Exact wording was:
CEO Linda Yaccarino previously claimed that brands are “protected from the risk of being next to” toxic posts.

Media Matters testing proved this to be false, and they provided evidence of that. Point to me in your scenario where the car company directly stated that their car would be protected from failure during an endurance race in a desert. No car company will do that.

You guys are taking the context of this way, way too far -- which is exactly why it's a bad faith lawsuit seeking only to discredit Media Matters. Again, ask the advertisers why they haven't resumed the ads yet.

 

[Drew0311]

Seems like Twitter can’t get anything right no matter who the owner is. The idiots before musk decided to sensor all right wing, musk is the opposite. I don’t do Twitter or Facebook but everyone seems to just argue about nonsense the time

 

[mwitt]

Let’s say that I am a car critic with a history of hostility toward a particular brand.

I review one of their models under extraordinary circumstances that would be extremely unusual for a typical consumer to encounter.

I then highlight the failures of that vehicle without mentioning that it was tested during an endurance race in Death Valley.

Willful deception with an intent to inflict harm, which would be unlikely be considered protected speech.

Why doesn't it ever give you pause when your natural instinct is contrary to consensus from subject matter experts? You misused 'frivolous' in this thread. Perhaps digging deeper into civil law isn't the best lane?

 

[Urbandale2013]

Let’s say that I am a car critic with a history of hostility toward a particular brand.

I review one of their models under extraordinary circumstances that would be extremely unusual for a typical consumer to encounter.

I then highlight the failures of that vehicle without mentioning that it was tested during an endurance race in Death Valley.

Willful deception with an intent to inflict harm, which would be unlikely be considered protected speech.

If Twitter had only claimed they try to protect brands from controversial/hateful posts that would be one thing. They have claimed they block ads from being by those posts. It’s twitters own fault they overstated their abilities.

The reality is they claimed it could handle an endurance race in Death Valley and it was proven they failed to complete the race.

 

[CloneIce]

I'm not totally familiar with the last statement as I haven't followed it that closely today. You're giving reasons why an advertiser might choose to pull their ads, but in this specific case, I think it can be established that the actions of Media Matters led directly to that result. Not easily, but there is an opening, particularly if they can establish that this was done deceptively and intentionally, especially if that was their desired result.

You’re really trying. Just digging, searching, squirming to find some way, any way, to blame Musks anti-Semitic posts and Nazi support on someone else.

 

[Cyclonepride]

You’re really trying. Just digging, searching, squirming to find some way, any way, to blame Musks anti-Semitic posts and Nazi support on someone else.

If you’d like to post those comments, I’ll evaluate that allegation. I’ve never commented on anything other than the merit of the lawsuit, and it appears your dislike of Musk has added imaginary points that I simply haven’t made.

 

[cydsho]

If speech is made with the intent to both damage and deceive, it can still have legal repercussion

No. Intent is not what you have to prove. You have to prove libel. It has to be a false statement.
How can you say a true statement and have that be illegal under the constitution?

 

[Cyclonepride]

No. Intent has nothing to do with it. You have to prove libel. It has to be a false statement.
How can you say a true statement and have that be illegal under the constitution?

It can be a technically true statement deceptively presented with the intent to cause harm through a lie of omission. I think that’s the basis of the lawsuit, and I’d guess their lawyers have a pretty good idea of the law.

 

[alarson]

I’d guess their lawyers have a pretty good idea of the law.

lol, no.

 

[CycloneErik]

This is fantastic and my only regret is I didn't think of it, am I slipping?

The only way to know for sure is a graph from someone in Knoxville.

 

[Drew0311]

Its not unusual at all.

To see if advertisers ads would end up near hateful speech, one would have to set up the experimental conditions such that hateful speech appeared in the first place and see what happened next.

The acceptable amount for that to occur for most advertisers is zero by the way.

And hate speech has exploded since Elon took over, changed the policies, and gutted the moderation that would weed a lot of that out. So when you take those two things together, advertisers can do the math and see that advertising on the platform puts them alongside a lot of garbage content.

Hate speech has always been on Twitter. Just depends on what hate speech you are talking about. Hate from ISIS/alqueda was there from
The old people in charge, hate speech from antifa was around with the old owners, now hate speech from far right propaganda is there now. Those are facts and not an opinion.

 

[alarson]

Hate speech has always been on Twitter. Just depends on what hate speech you are talking about. Hate from ISIS/alqueda was there from
The old people in charge, hate speech from antifa was around with the old owners, now hate speech from far right propaganda is there now. Those are facts and not an opinion.

Oh for ****'s sake. This is idiotic.

You clearly don't know what hate speech is.

 

[Drew0311]

Oh for ****'s sake. This is idiotic.

You clearly don't know what hate speech is.

It’s idiotic that u actually ignore facts. I mean that’s fine but facts are facts.

 

[alarson]

It’s idiotic that u actually ignore facts. I mean that’s fine but facts are facts.

Your 'facts' aren't facts at all.

You should be obligated to return to your original username.