I was wondering what the deal was behind Elon Musk's lawsuit against Media Splatters.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/e...ac07&ei=38
...His suit charges the group with “maliciously” and misleadingly depicting major-company ads appearing on the platform next to pro-Nazi and white-supremacist posts “as if they were what typical X users experience on the platform.”
Media Matters stands by its “reporting,” but if the lawsuit’s charges are true (and they sure seem plausible), then this group has stooped to a new low: intentionally misleading companies to think the platform is so rife with ugly content that their ads are sure to appear near such posts.
Per the suit, Media Matters created its report by intentionally bypassing X’s safeguards against such posts, creating accounts that “exclusively followed” accounts owned by big-name advertisers plus “a small subset of users” who are “known to produce extreme, fringe content.”
It then “resorted to endlessly scrolling and refreshing” until it got the results it wanted: “controversial content next to X’s largest advertisers,” which it screenshotted and used in its “reporting” on X...
Even if that's true, who cares? Clan members watch TV, right? These companies going to stop advertising on TV if I can get a recording of those folks watching a Pepsi ad during The Deadliest Catch? This is all just another attempt to stifle free speech.
It shouldn't matter that racists get targeted ads. That's not X's job.
They always pretend to be what they aren't, just like J6.
(11-22-2023, 03:53 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Even if that's true, who cares? Clan members watch TV, right? These companies going to stop advertising on TV if I can get a recording of those folks watching a Pepsi ad during The Deadliest Catch? This is all just another attempt to stifle free speech.
It shouldn't matter that racists get targeted ads. That's not X's job.
I’m not sure I follow your line of reasoning. Whose free speech is being stifled?
