• communication [they]@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I agree with your point in general, but I have a hard time applying it here. Unless the lawsuit alleges that MM hacked into Twitter or doctored the screenshots, then the core claim of the MM report “Twitter served ad Y next to post Z” is not under dispute. If the claim is that refreshing a page is malicious, then I don’t think we need to wait to call the lawsuit malicious.

    • blaine@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      @communication

      I agree that the core claim of the MM report is not under dispute. But take a look at their article now that you know the context around how those ads were generated.

      https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-x-has-been-placing-ads-apple-bravo-ibm-oracle

      I don’t know if it’s defamatory, but you have to agree that it comes off as a bit disingenuous based on the new info from X. Of course that info from X could be BS, which is why I said we’ll have to wait for the court case to know for sure.

      • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I mean, it’s splitting hairs. While the proximity probably didn’t help, I doubt the companies deciding to pull ads weren’t like “sure, we don’t mind hanging out in a nazi bar, just make sure not to seat us next to any nazis.” I mean, some probably were, but there has been increasingly large amounts of pressure on these people and within like 24 hours of each other Elon endorses replacement theory and the MM story drops that Elon is running ads for nazis. There are only so many times you can make a dumb excuse. For lots of us, that was a long time ago. Even the capitalists are realizing now at least that he’s bad for business.