>stirring up a controversy about the contents of the platform
So reporting news that the recipients are interested in is not "stirring up controversy"? Do you not see which of you vs NBC is being dishonest?
>I'm also quite confident that NBC News didn't dare to question the data
It's good that you are quite confident about things you have no knowledge about. News organizations generally follow principles that carry far more weight for accuracy than unfounded internet opinions.
>Wikipedia reports such criticism of the SPLC
Selective reading much? If you're listing a Wikipedia article to garner trust in your argument, at least don't selectively read the part you like and ignore the parts you don't.
Some parts you ignored: "the SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups (organizations that "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics") and anti-government extremists are widely relied upon by academic and media sources"
Why would academia rely on them, given that the prime currency in academia is intellectual honesty? Oh yeah, because SLPC is well-respected in the assessment of Nazi and other hate speech.
"As of 2023, SPLC has earned the GuideStar Gold Seal of Transparency, which is given to organizations that voluntarily share their financials and "highlight their commitment to inclusivity to gain funders' trust and support." This is stark contrast to Musk hiding and lying about Twitter finances, blocking access to data to make it harder for researchers to more clearly detail the rise in hate speech (yet they do it anyway - simply use Google scholar and look for twitter nazi hate speech for thousands of papers on the topic, with all the data you can possibly desire).
I guess you ignored the list of a dozen+ large cases they won against groups including the KKK (many times), the White Aryan Resistance, Aryan Nation, The Daily Stormer, and others.
So are you cherry picking the one point you like ad ignoring the rest because you support all these other groups? Or do you love Musk+Twitter so much that you'll go to this length to defend him from the truth in this case, even if you have to make claims you have no proof for?
It's clear how intellectual dishonesty has led to you have beliefs that are not accrued from honest assessment the evidence before you. If you want some honest evidence, spend some time on Google Scholar reading the ample peer reviewed work on what Musk had brought to Twitter. My guess is you'll either not put in the work to improve your understanding, or you'll simply ignore proper evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs. Good luck.
To start you off here's two articles (dig on scihub if you actually want to read them) that are highly cited (and if you check citing articles, they're cited because they're accurate) [1],[2]. From the abstracts (data in papers)
[1] "We examine the levels of hate speech and prevalence of bots before and after Musk's acquisition of the platform. We find that hate speech rose dramatically upon Musk purchasing Twitter and the prevalence of most types of bots increased, while the prevalence of astroturf bots decreased."
[2] "Utilizing the configuration model to generate random retweet networks, we successfully found a direct link between Twitter users who retweet Musk and users who retweet several SPLC-defined hate groups. Results show that Musk’s Tweets and general rhetoric have a potential appeal to hateful users on Twitter."
When the platform leader appeals to hate groups, as this paper demonstrated, it's clear how we got here. You might want to read the science (and how to replicate it) before you make more unchecked claims.
I have no further interest in such dishonesty. Have a good day.
[1] https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/22222
[2] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-53503-1_...