Musk’s X sues liberal advocacy group Media Matters

[ThatRobGuy]

Musk's X sues liberal advocacy group Media Matters over its report on ads next to hate groups' posts

Elon Musk’s X filed a lawsuit against Media Matters for America, saying it manufactured a report to show advertisers’ posts alongside neo-Nazi posts.

apnews.com

IBM, NBCUniversal and its parent company Comcast said last week that they stopped advertising on X after the Media Matters report said their ads were appearing alongside material praising Nazis. It was a fresh setback as the platform tries to win back big brands and their ad dollars, X’s main source of revenue.

But San Francisco-based X says in its complaint filed in federal court in Fort Worth, Texas, that Media Matters “knowingly and maliciously” portrayed ads next to hateful material “as if they were what typical X users experience on the platform.”

X’s complaint claims that Media Matters manipulated algorithms on the platform to create images of advertisers’ paid posts next to racist, incendiary content. The juxtapositions, according to the complaint, were “manufactured, inorganic and extraordinarily rare.”

It says Media Matters did this by using X accounts that just followed X users known to produce “extreme fringe content” and accounts owned by X’s major advertisers. This, the complaint says, led to a feed aimed at producing side-by-side placements that Media Matters could then screen shot in an effort to alienate X’s advertisers.


If this is true, it wouldn't be the first time Media Matters has engaged in some shenanigans that crossed the line from what they claim to be, which is a "media watchdog that holds conservatives to account", into the territory of "intentionally producing/fabricating outcomes that gives themselves a story to report on" in order to "prove their point".

 

[USincognito]

So much for free speech absolutism.

Definite case of judge shopping.

 

[Vambram]

So much for free speech absolutism.

Definite case of judge shopping.

Whaaat?

 

[rambot]

Musk's X sues liberal advocacy group Media Matters over its report on ads next to hate groups' posts

Elon Musk’s X filed a lawsuit against Media Matters for America, saying it manufactured a report to show advertisers’ posts alongside neo-Nazi posts.

apnews.com

IBM, NBCUniversal and its parent company Comcast said last week that they stopped advertising on X after the Media Matters report said their ads were appearing alongside material praising Nazis. It was a fresh setback as the platform tries to win back big brands and their ad dollars, X’s main source of revenue.

But San Francisco-based X says in its complaint filed in federal court in Fort Worth, Texas, that Media Matters “knowingly and maliciously” portrayed ads next to hateful material “as if they were what typical X users experience on the platform.”

X’s complaint claims that Media Matters manipulated algorithms on the platform to create images of advertisers’ paid posts next to racist, incendiary content. The juxtapositions, according to the complaint, were “manufactured, inorganic and extraordinarily rare.”

It says Media Matters did this by using X accounts that just followed X users known to produce “extreme fringe content” and accounts owned by X’s major advertisers. This, the complaint says, led to a feed aimed at producing side-by-side placements that Media Matters could then screen shot in an effort to alienate X’s advertisers.


If this is true, it wouldn't be the first time Media Matters has engaged in some shenanigans that crossed the line from what they claim to be, which is a "media watchdog that holds conservatives to account", into the territory of "intentionally producing/fabricating outcomes that gives themselves a story to report on" in order to "prove their point".

Yeah. Cause no one else in America does that.

I dont think there is anything duplicitous in this.

My "understanding" is that they were throttling that content ao it was almost impossible to see.

Maybe they have to throttle it further.

That material is on their website. It cannot be denied. Those advertisements can show up anywhere their own algorithm decides. If the advertisers don't like that do they not have a right to insist that their ads are never placed beside malicious content?


And of COURSE you will note that this only became an issue for advertisers when Elon Musk thr owner gave a large voice to a disconcerting statement. I didn't wrap my head around it but many people made thr connection.


Frankly to me, this sounds more like Elon looking for a way to blame someone else.

I mean wouldn't he also have to prove malicious intent as well?

 

[Gene2memE]

It's a garbage suit and will likely get tossed. It deliberately circumvents Twitter's own EULA about the location of legal filings (hint, venue is a large state with strong anti-SLAPP statues) and doesn't even attempted to refute the central claim, it just argues that such thing are rare.

It's also telling that neither of Musk's nor Twitter's usual external legal counsel put their names to the suit. They've had to submit some fairly bonkers filings in the last 18 months, but this one looks like a bridge too far.

If it doesn't get tossed though Media Matters is going to have a hoot of a time with discovery. I suspect that they'll be able to drag Musk et al through some VERY revealing depositions and cross examinations. I wonder how Mr "You have said the actual truth" will do on the stand.

 

[USincognito]

Whaaat?

A year or so ago Elon declared himself a free speech absolutist. He's proven to be anything but.

A guy who lives in Austin having his San Francisco based company sue a D.C. based nonprofit in Fort Worth is a textbook example of judge shopping.

 

[Estrid]

It's a garbage suit and will likely get tossed. It deliberately circumvents Twitter's own EULA about the location of legal filings (hint, venue is a large state with strong anti-SLAPP statues) and doesn't even attempted to refute the central claim, it just argues that such thing are rare.

It's also telling that neither of Musk's nor Twitter's usual external legal counsel put their names to the suit. They've had to submit some fairly bonkers filings in the last 18 months, but this one looks like a bridge too far.

If it doesn't get tossed though Media Matters is going to have a hoot of a time with discovery. I suspect that they'll be able to drag Musk et al through some VERY revealing depositions and cross examinations. I wonder how Mr "You have said the actual truth" will do on the stand.

Do you class it with Americas famously
absurd hot coffee / MacDonalds lawsuit?

 

[Estrid]

A year or so ago Elon declared himself a free speech absolutist. He's proven to be anything but.

A guy who lives in Austin having his San Francisco based company sue a D.C. based nonprofit in Fort Worth is a textbook example of judge shopping.

Did he? Free speech absolutist?
The very idea is ridiculous/ impossible.

And that's not what judge shopping means

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah. Cause no one else in America does that.

I dont think there is anything duplicitous in this.

My "understanding" is that they were throttling that content ao it was almost impossible to see.

Maybe they have to throttle it further.

That material is on their website. It cannot be denied. Those advertisements can show up anywhere their own algorithm decides. If the advertisers don't like that do they not have a right to insist that their ads are never placed beside malicious content?


And of COURSE you will note that this only became an issue for advertisers when Elon Musk thr owner gave a large voice to a disconcerting statement. I didn't wrap my head around it but many people made thr connection.


Frankly to me, this sounds more like Elon looking for a way to blame someone else.

I mean wouldn't he also have to prove malicious intent as well?

I think the core aspect of the lawsuit is that Media Matters used what were, in essence, sockpuppet accounts and had enough insight into the algorithm that they were able to produce the particular outcome they were looking for in order to financially damage his business.

the group’s reporters curated an account to view white supremacist content and “repeatedly refreshed their feeds to find rare instances of ads” next to the content. ...off the 5.5 billion ad impressions on the site daily, just 50 were on the specific pieces of content highlighted by Media Matters in their report.

For instance, if you were running a platform, and I got a bunch of my friends together and we knew how to manipulate the algorithm in order to get a piece of hate content next to a Target Ad (a scenario that otherwise wouldn't have happened organically), and then sent the screenshot to Target execs specifically for the purposes of damaging your business, you'd be understandably wanting to take some sort of legal action for that.

As noted, this isn't the first time that Media Matters (who claims to be a watchdog or) has drifted into activities that go well-beyond just "watching and reporting" and into the realm of engaging in boycotting and public pressure campaigns to badger advertisers into pulling their funding for entities they don't like as well as putting efforts towards manipulating outcomes. (they actually caught some flak from progressive publications like The Atlantic and The Young Turks back in the DNC primary leading up to 2016... who stated that MM hurt their own credibility by doing things during it, that were basically "running defense for Hillary Clinton so she'd beat Bernie")

Granted, that's when the org was still under the leadership of David Brock (he left last year), however, their new head seems to have something of a similar track record of being a former high ranking member of the DNC, and allowing personal activism efforts to blur into the stated mission of the non-profit organization (which is supposed to just be a watch dog)

If the allegations being made are true, then it sounds like this was the sort of hatchet job type of reporting that I would equate to a left-wing equivalent of the types of hatchet jobs Project Veritas does.


If I buy "Ted Smith" 6 beers, and you tell Ted Smith "hey, you wanna drive my sports car? Really? Are you sure, c'mon...give it a shot, it'll be fine", we wouldn't really be able to claim we were purely "watchdogs" when we bust out the camera phones and then run the headline "Ted Smith gets caught driving drunk"

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Do you class it with Americas famously
absurd hot coffee / MacDonalds lawsuit?

That lawsuit is only seen as "famously absurd" because McDonalds went to great lengths to portray it as such. The reality is that the woman received 3rd-degree burns from the coffee over 6% of her body, requiring multiple skin grafts and resulting in permanent disfigurement. She originally asked for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. McDonalds counter-offered only $800.

She then hired an attorney to sue, and after McDonalds rejected the attorney's settlement offer as well, the case went to trial, where it was found that McDonalds required franchisees to maintain their coffee at dangerously high temperatures and had received more than 700 reports of serious burns/scalding related to their coffee in the previous 10 years, which led the jury to rule in the favor of the plaintiff on the basis of McDonalds' negligence.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Did he? Free speech absolutist?
The very idea is ridiculous/ impossible.

Yes:

And that's not what judge shopping means

Yes, it is. There's no relationship between any of the parties in the suit and the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. X is just filing its lawsuit in a place that is perceived as a favorable venue.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

For instance, if you were running a platform, and I got a bunch of my friends together and we knew how to manipulate the algorithm in order to get a piece of hate content next to a Target Ad (a scenario that otherwise wouldn't have happened organically), and then sent the screenshot to Target execs specifically for the purposes of damaging your business, you'd be understandably wanting to take some sort of legal action for that.

Wanting to take legal action does not mean that you have a case.

As noted, this isn't the first time that Media Matters (who claims to be a watchdog or) has drifted into activities that go well-beyond just "watching and reporting" and into the realm of engaging in boycotting and public pressure campaigns to badger advertisers into pulling their funding for entities they don't like as well as putting efforts towards manipulating outcomes. (they actually caught some flak from progressive publications like The Atlantic and The Young Turks back in the DNC primary leading up to 2016... who stated that MM hurt their own credibility by doing things during it, that were basically "running defense for Hillary Clinton so she'd beat Bernie")

Granted, that's when the org was still under the leadership of David Brock (he left last year), however, their new head seems to have something of a similar track record of being a former high ranking member of the DNC, and allowing personal activism efforts to blur into the stated mission of the non-profit organization (which is supposed to just be a watch dog)

If the allegations being made are true, then it sounds like this was the sort of hatchet job type of reporting that I would equate to a left-wing equivalent of the types of hatchet jobs Project Veritas does.

I agree that this doesn't really help their credibility as a "watchdog," but that's not a crime. The legality of this situation hinges on what aspect of the content produced by Media Matters caused the advertisers to reconsider their relationship with Twitter. If the exaggerated user experience is what swayed them (i.e. we do not want users of X seeing our ads next to antisemitic content), then there may be an argument for defamation. But if it was more related to the overall backlash of being called out for doing business with a platform that doesn't do a good job of policing antisemitic content, then the algorithmic manipulation is just a method to draw attention to and emphasize that fact.

 

[Estrid]

That lawsuit is only seen as "famously absurd" because McDonalds went to great lengths to portray it as such. The reality is that the woman received 3rd-degree burns from the coffee over 6% of her body, requiring multiple skin grafts and resulting in permanent disfigurement. She originally asked for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. McDonalds counter-offered only $800.

She then hired an attorney to sue, and after McDonalds rejected the attorney's settlement offer as well, the case went to trial, where it was found that McDonalds required franchisees to maintain their coffee at dangerously high temperatures and had received more than 700 reports of serious burns/scalding related to their coffee in the previous 10 years, which led the jury to rule in the favor of the plaintiff on the basis of McDonalds' negligence.

I know the story. I see you do too.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I agree that this doesn't really help their credibility as a "watchdog," but that's not a crime. The legality of this situation hinges on what aspect of the content produced by Media Matters caused the advertisers to reconsider their relationship with Twitter. If the exaggerated user experience is what swayed them (i.e. we do not want users of X seeing our ads next to antisemitic content), then there may be an argument for defamation. But if it was more related to the overall backlash of being called out for doing business with a platform that doesn't do a good job of policing antisemitic content, then the algorithmic manipulation is just a method to draw attention to and emphasize that fact.

...but they went after Twitter/X in particular, even though the same extreme outlier scenario is probably just as possible on other platforms.

Clearly it's because they didn't like the new arrangement of allowing more right-wing voices as opposed to the previous leadership who gave preferential treatment to their preferred viewpoint. (if their historical track record is any indicator)

To prove how easy this trick is to do, being that I have a tech background and know a little something about how the FB algorithm works (and it's almost certain Media Matters has technical resources on par with my skill level)

...I was able to produce this outcome on one of my "sock" accounts in a matter of 15 minutes

Here's an ad for the Factor food delivery service right next to an anti-vaxx post by FRC (an org that's on the SPLC hatewatch list)...time to email the CEO of Factor and tell them to pull their ad dollars from Facebook because Facebook is putting their ads next to conspiracy content? Or is that something I did on purpose because I was trying to prove a point? You give me 10 other people, let me give them some simple instructions, and a couple of hours, I bet I could get a McDonalds ad to show up next to a post promoting the Matt Walsh "What is a woman" movie.

 

[Pommer]

...but they went after Twitter/X in particular, even though the same extreme outlier scenario is probably just as possible on other platforms.

Clearly it's because they didn't like the new arrangement of allowing more right-wing voices as opposed to the previous leadership who gave preferential treatment to their preferred viewpoint. (if their historical track record is any indicator)

To prove how easy this trick is to do, being that I have a tech background and know a little something about how the FB algorithm works (and it's almost certain Media Matters has technical resources on par with my skill level)

...I was able to produce this outcome on one of my "sock" accounts in a matter of 15 minutes

View attachment 339830


Here's an ad for the Factor food delivery service right next to an anti-vaxx post by FRC (an org that's on the SPLC hatewatch list)...time to email the CEO of Factor and tell them to pull their ad dollars from Facebook because Facebook is putting their ads next to conspiracy content? Or is that something I did on purpose because I was trying to prove a point? You give me 10 other people, let me give them some simple instructions, and a couple of hours, I bet I could get a McDonalds ad to show up next to a post promoting the Matt Walsh "What is a woman" movie.

Suing someone over what they said that your “product” did (juxtaposing antisemitic content and other companies’ advertisements), doesn’t seem like it would have much steam.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Suing someone over what they said that your “product” did (juxtaposing antisemitic content and other companies’ advertisements), doesn’t seem like it would have much steam.

It may if one can prove financial damages from it.

Given that the Media Matters tactic for producing the outcome is flimsy

And given the criticisms against Musk's retweeting of something was more benign (with regards to offensiveness against Jewish people) in comparison to what progressives are chanting out in the streets. ...his case may be more solid than you think.

"We're offended by this retweet that may have been offensive to Jews" brought to you by "the people who defend the activists burning Israeli flags and chanting From the River to the Sea" may come across as a little hollow.

 

[iluvatar5150]

...but they went after Twitter/X in particular, even though the same extreme outlier scenario is probably just as possible on other platforms.

Clearly it's because they didn't like the new arrangement of allowing more right-wing voices as opposed to the previous leadership who gave preferential treatment to their preferred viewpoint. (if their historical track record is any indicator)

To prove how easy this trick is to do, being that I have a tech background and know a little something about how the FB algorithm works (and it's almost certain Media Matters has technical resources on par with my skill level)

...I was able to produce this outcome on one of my "sock" accounts in a matter of 15 minutes

View attachment 339830


Here's an ad for the Factor food delivery service right next to an anti-vaxx post by FRC (an org that's on the SPLC hatewatch list)...time to email the CEO of Factor and tell them to pull their ad dollars from Facebook because Facebook is putting their ads next to conspiracy content? Or is that something I did on purpose because I was trying to prove a point? You give me 10 other people, let me give them some simple instructions, and a couple of hours, I bet I could get a McDonalds ad to show up next to a post promoting the Matt Walsh "What is a woman" movie.

IMO, if you’re going to run a major communications platform funded predominantly by advertising, then having filters and safeguards against the sort of thing you accomplished should be part of the standard feature set.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

IMO, if you’re going to run a major communications platform funded predominantly by advertising, then having filters and safeguards against the sort of thing you accomplished should be part of the standard feature set.

"Should" and "feasibly possible with 100% accuracy" are two different things within the constructs of the internet.

And as long as other major platforms clearly have the same flaw, The fact that they deliberately targeted X (because they don't like musk) is indicative of a partisan hatchet job aimed hurting his bottom line.

If McDonald's and Burger King had an identical issue with regards to food safety, and I specifically chose to target only McDonald's after it is already well known that I had a pre-established gripe with their CEO over political differences, it would be pretty clear that my biases were playing a factor.

 

[iluvatar5150]

"Should" and "feasibly possible with 100% accuracy" are two different things within the constructs of the internet.

And as long as other major platforms clearly have the same flaw, The fact that they deliberately targeted X (because they don't like musk) is indicative of a partisan hatchet job aimed hurting his bottom line.

If McDonald's and Burger King had an identical issue with regards to food safety, and I specifically chose to target only McDonald's after it is already well known that I had a pre-established gripe with their CEO over political differences, it would be pretty clear that my biases were playing a factor.

Granted, I can't see into the hearts of the MM crew, but I doubt their issues with Elon Musk are merely political. He bought a large social media platform and then proceeded to undermine a lot of the safeguards they were supposedly trying to establish by adopting a mantle of libertarianism that turned out to be as thin as tissue paper. He's not some libertarian business genius - he's just a mercurial rich boy who's platforming a bunch of bad actors because they don't challenge him. For the fast food comparison to work, McD's and BK would've had to have started out trying to adopt good (although ultimately flawed) food safety practices, only for McD's to be bought out by some guy claiming to be a Free Holding Temp Absolutist, who insisted that he be allowed to leave the chicken out on the counter all day.

I didn't have a high opinion of Twitter before, but Musk is making it worse in a lot of ways and eschewing many of the things that folks were doing to try to keep it from going off the rails.

 

[Pommer]

It may if one can prove financial damages from it.

Given that the Media Matters tactic for producing the outcome is flimsy

And given the criticisms against Musk's retweeting of something was more benign (with regards to offensiveness against Jewish people) in comparison to what progressives are chanting out in the streets. ...his case may be more solid than you think.

"We're offended by this retweet that may have been offensive to Jews" brought to you by "the people who defend the activists burning Israeli flags and chanting From the River to the Sea" may come across as a little hollow.

“What your organization said, cost me money!”
So what? The courts will say.