X sues Media Matters to silence moderation criticism | Hacker News Reader

X sues Media Matters to silence moderation criticism

theverge.com

35 pointscdme27 comments

Unfortunately, Musk filed the suit in a state which has a worse anti-SLAPP law, which makes it harder for him to be forced to pay to defend free speech. Although Media Matters might have a good shot at effecting a change-of-venue by arguing that it should be brought in CA (where eX-Twitter is headquartered) or DC (where Media Matters is located).

Scrolling to causes of action:

> Interference With Contract

Lolnope. How did Media Matters interfere with advertisers' contracts? As I understand it, the advertisers willingly pulled their advertising (which I assume the contracts give them the right to do so). There's no allegation that it was specifically the MM report that caused them to pull the advertising either, so even if you want to view a willful termination of contract as interference, you haven't even plead enough to get there.

> Business Disparagement

Again, lolnope. You concede that the facts are true--you did in fact serve up the ads next to misleading content, and you admit that. Perhaps they are misleading, but when you're trying to argue that "they only demonstrated 5 ad views, so it doesn't count," my sympathy is not with you. And misleading usually isn't enough to get you to disparagement anyways.

> Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

Hey, here's a claim that actually makes legal sense. But see last bullet point, this isn't going to hold any water.

For someone who claims to be pro-speech, he really seems to not be in favor of speech about him.

You clearly didn't read the filing.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24172809-x-v-media-m...

They followed only Nazis and major advertisers, then hid this fact in their reporting and presented it as a normal, natural user interaction.

If it goes through, a Texas jury will rule against MM. What they did is unethical and dishonest. You might find this acceptable, but only because you dislike Elon Musk. Any objective party can see this for what it is.

What's to stop me from doing the same to Reddit, FB, TikTok, etc??

> You clearly didn't read the filing.

I in fact did read the filing. That's why I started with the actual causes of actions. And that's why I can also point out the cases where the lawsuit fails to actually plead necessary elements of their own claims, for example, never actually pleading that Media Matters induced a contract breach.

> They followed only Nazis and major advertisers, then hid this fact in their reporting and presented it as a normal, natural user interaction.

That doesn't matter. Media Matters said that Twitter would place ads next to extremist content, and Twitter admits--in this lawsuit no less--that it did! But then goes on to argue that it's actually Media Matters who placed those ads, not Twitter (¶25 if you don't believe me) which is kooks.

> If it goes through, a Texas jury will rule against MM.

>90% odds this suit gets transferred to CA. Why is Twitter filing a lawsuit against another company in a state where neither is incorporated, where none of the actions took place, and where Twitter's ToS doesn't say that lawsuits should be filed? (Well, because it's harder for MM to avail itself of anti-SLAPP in the 5th Circuit that's why). But even once it gets there, or should it not even reach there, it won't survive a motion to dismiss. It does nowhere near the amount of legwork it actually needs to do to substantiate the causes of action it alleges.

> You might find this acceptable, but only because you dislike Elon Musk.

No. I understand First Amendment jurisprudence and how hard it is for anyone to actually successfully win a lawsuit over disparagement. If the page count in your complaint is not in the triple digits, you probably didn't do sufficient work to actually clear those hurdles.

> What's to stop me from doing the same to Reddit, FB, TikTok, etc??

Absolutely nothing. You can thank the First Amendment for that.

> What's to stop me from doing the same to Reddit, FB, TikTok, etc??

By all means, do it. Please.

I'm sorry, but calling this fraud is a stretch. Twitter served ads next to extremist content and doesn't deny it. Their defense is that it's rare because most people don't follow that combination of accounts* and don't doom scroll.

If I were an advertiser using a service that said I could prevent my ads from appearing next to extremist content, I'd want the chance to be 0%, not rare. Rare at Twitter scale is still a lot.

- * In light of the Bud Light boycott, I bet there are a decent number of users who follow brands (like Bud Light) and hateful content (anti-trans propaganda). Note Twitters use of the weasel word "average".

No, their defense is that Media Matters was passing this off to advertisers as representative of what normal Twitter users were seeing.

I don't know much about US law specifically, but in most countries if a third party (usually but not always a competitor) goes to one party in an agreement and lies to them in order to induce them to cut business from a second, then that's libel/slander and can yield damages against the untruthful party.

In this case Media Matters has clearly been untruthful. What they did is barely different from just outright Photoshopping the images together, or sticking a misleading caption on a cropped photo. The legal question is therefore only to what extent US law / first amendment protects such unethical behavior, not whether they did it at all.

I think the most surprising thing about the Bud Light fiasco is that their marketing department thought that Dylan Mulvaney, with his insultingly misogynistic and creepy portrayal of 'girlhood', would reflect well on their brand.

The only people who seem to celebrate Mulvaney's preposterous performances are a minority of overly-online zoomers, who aren't even the target market.

Is it really 'hateful' to look at men like this and understand that they are not women in any way, shape or form? No, it's just common sense.

It sounds like X did serve ads next to pro-nazi tweets, it just took them 10-15 refreshes to get it to happen.

https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1726772923841552784...

Yes, to accounts ONLY following Nazis and major advertisers and nobody else.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24172809-x-v-media-m...

As an advertiser, I would not care - did you put my brand next to a post promoting nazis or not?

As an advertiser, I'm not sure that I care about "brand damage" for fake accounts that only follow nazis, with fake traffic generated; just don't charge me for it.

This makes sense when you consider ads to represent or agree with the opinion of the nearby posts. I don't think advertisers would like that either.

I have an immense distaste for Musk et al, but he seems right here. Media matters is clearly being weaponized against himself and x. There are no winners here, and those clammoring for his deplatforming for reasons of political prefrence are the most terrifying part.

He owns literally one of the largest online platforms in the world

Why is this even flagged?

Article title insufficiently fawning over Dear Leader, I'd assume; the Muskovites are pretty sensitive about this sort of thing.

God Forbid. His Lordship. Must be praised. And never doubted. For abilities let alone intents.

Media matters followed a few major brands, a few extremist groups, and then refreshed until they saw a combination that people would get upset about. I think that is why they are being sued

Corrected title: X sues Media Matters to silence alleged fraudulent manipulation and libel

It's not just X suing, it's also the Texas AG opening an investigation.

I'm not sure that _Ken Paxton_'s involvement bolsters the credibility of the suit any.

This headline is extremely biased.

...towards reality. The "free speech absolutist" guy got his little feelings hurt again.

Alternately: X sues Media Matters for unsubstantiated slanderous remarks triggering unwarranted financial setback

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/news/releases/attorney-general-k...

Looks like criminal charges have been filed as well. Great first step against embedded propaganda in US Media.

> Attorney General Paxton was extremely troubled by the allegations that Media Matters, a radical anti-free speech organization, fraudulently manipulated data on X.com (formerly known as Twitter).

Hilarious. Is the AG opening themselves up to a lawsuit with this characterization?

Fraudulently falsifying evidence with intent to harm is a felony. MM falsified manufactured and contrived evidence that materially affected X.

Slam dunk. I hope people go to jail.

Excuse me? Falsifying evidence refers specifically to court proceedings and not public discourse. You muskies say the darndest things. I'd say you should learn a bit about the law before making such wild conjectures, but jeez, you can google this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com