That's compatible with freedom of speech. He's not censoring it, but he can show damages from misleading speech.
I would rather have my account "censored" then being forced to spends tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers.
Clearly different from some random internet person saying something controversial or unpopular.
Also: does anyone think those big accounts just up and left after one shoestring organization published something?
They most likely replicated the results themselves.
It doesn't represent an actual experience though, it's deliberate and misleading since that curation was left out of the report.
Probably also has something to do with the kinds of ugly stuff the owner of Twitter has been boosting lately.
Well anyway, let's all continue speculating...
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.
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-...
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?
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...
> 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.
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...
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.
So yes, my statement was correct, you just aren't familiar with how it works.