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.
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.
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.
> 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.”
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.
Readit News
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.
Well... welcome to Texas.
Deleted Comment
Linda Yaccarino writes: https://twitter.com/lindayaX/status/1726747531843915965
Show, don't tell.
Lawsuit aside, how is this supposed to reassure advertisers? "Don't worry, we only showed your ad to fake users." Ok, thanks.
But that's just me.
I invite others to comment. I have heard that claim made baselessly by some, though perhaps others can provide a firm basis.
> 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-...
Dead Comment