• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

[Continuation] Musk buys Twitter II

Samson said:
I will be interested in the court case.
From memory, Musk says media matters constructively associated his tweet with nazi propaganda, and thus caused X substantial commercial loss.
Click to expand...
Unsurprisingly, you declined my proposal.

Your presentation here is antithetical to what is ostensibly the mission of this forum. You are "in lock step with disinformation".
 
Darat said:
Nor the actual lawsuit. Sadly there seems to be a lack of willingness to go to the primary sources rather than relying on a 50-minute YouTube video to tell you what you should think.
Click to expand...

Especially for people who self admittedly only look for sources they agree with beforehand.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Here is the original Media Matters article. Where's the falsehood?
Click to expand...
I read the Media Matters article. The gist of it appears to be that despite X CEO Linda Yaccarino asserting that “Brands are now ‘protected from the risk of being next to’ potentially toxic content" ads were still appearing next to 'content promoting Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.'

It also says that "IBM subsequently released a statement saying that it has “suspended all advertising on X while we investigate this entirely unacceptable situation.”.

But...
X last week said it had rolled out additional brand safety controls for advertisers, including the ability to avoid having their ads show next to “targeted hate speech, sexual content, gratuitous gore, excessive profanity, obscenity, spam, drugs.” In addition to human content moderation reviewers that monitor for content that violates the platform’s rules, X says it has automated software that determines where and how ads are placed on the platform.
Click to expand...

So the question is, was the software not working as well as it should, or were advertisers just not using the tools available to them?

The more disturbing thing is that apparently these advertisers didn't know there was a problem until Media Matters published a story about it. The problem with this is that we don't know the extent of the problem, and frankly I don't trust Media Matters to be honest about it. Even worse, they lumped in other irrelevant stuff,
X’s problem with advertising comes as owner Elon Musk praised the pernicious antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jewish communities are supporting “hordes of minorities” who are “flooding” into the country to replace white people. Musk’s endorsement is just the latest example of him embracing rhetoric and conspiracy theories from the far-right fringes.

Aside from his own rhetoric, Musk has opened the floodgates to hateful content by reversing bans on anti-Muslim bigots, white nationalists, and antisemites. His company has also financially rewarded extremists, including apparently paying $3,000 to a pro-Hitler and Holocaust denial account through X’s ad revenue sharing program. (Even after criticism, X has not suspended that openly antisemitic account, which has nearly 100,000 followers.)
Click to expand...
A strong smell of agenda here.

I hate to say it, but it almost seems like Media Matters don't believe in free speech, and their goal in publishing this article is to damage X's reputation so it goes bankrupt.

Twitter itself was bad enough, but now we have another organization trying to prevent a free speech platform from existing. And not just X.

YouTube is monetizing and helping raise funds for Patrick Casey, a white nationalist whose group helped organize “Unite the Right”
YouTube has allowed notorious white nationalist Patrick Casey — who led a group that helped organize the 2017 “Unite the Right” gathering in Charlottesville, Virginia — to stream on the platform and monetize his content. Media Matters found that Casey has earned revenue on the platform from both ads that have appeared on his videos and through the “Super Chat” feature, which has garnered over $1,000 in contributions from viewers. YouTube takes a cut from both...

YouTube’s monetization of Casey is another instance of the platform monetizing white nationalist content, and it is part of a broader monetization crisis on its platform. For years, YouTube has repeatedly allowed channels to monetize videos that violate the platform’s own rules, as well as videos pushing other misinformation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I noticed that. Pity Media Matters is concentrating on silly White Nationalist stuff instead instead of reporting on the truly pernicious misinformation on YouTube.
 
This is an impressive load of fanboy drivel...
Roger Ramjets said:
I read the Media Matters article. The gist of it appears to be that despite X CEO Linda Yaccarino asserting that “Brands are now ‘protected from the risk of being next to’ potentially toxic content" ads were still appearing next to 'content promoting Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.'

It also says that "IBM subsequently released a statement saying that it has “suspended all advertising on X while we investigate this entirely unacceptable situation.”.

But...

So the question is, was the software not working as well as it should, or were advertisers just not using the tools available to them?
Click to expand...
Tools available to them? Are the advertisers expected to learn tools specific to X?

The more disturbing thing is that apparently these advertisers didn't know there was a problem until Media Matters published a story about it.
Click to expand...
More likely they were turning a blind eye and then the MM article gained broad attention, and then they switched to damage control.

The problem with this is that we don't know the extent of the problem, and frankly I don't trust Media Matters to be honest about it. Even worse, they lumped in other irrelevant stuff,
A strong smell of agenda here.
Click to expand...
MM is well known to be agenda-driven since day 1 of their existence . BFD.

I hate to say it, but it almost seems like Media Matters don't believe in free speech, and their goal in publishing this article is to damage X's reputation so it goes bankrupt.
Click to expand...
Someone documented the toxic Nazi content on X. Boo hoo poor Elon.

Twitter itself was bad enough, but now we have another organization trying to prevent a free speech platform from existing. And not just X.

YouTube is monetizing and helping raise funds for Patrick Casey, a white nationalist whose group helped organize “Unite the Right”Yeah, I noticed that. Pity Media Matters is concentrating on silly White Nationalist stuff instead instead of reporting on the truly pernicious misinformation on YouTube.
Click to expand...
If you think the proliferation of far right extremism in the US is a trivial issue, either you're woefully misinformed or else you're a sociopath.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
I read the Media Matters article. The gist of it appears to be that despite X CEO Linda Yaccarino asserting that “Brands are now ‘protected from the risk of being next to’ potentially toxic content" ads were still appearing next to 'content promoting Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.'

It also says that "IBM subsequently released a statement saying that it has “suspended all advertising on X while we investigate this entirely unacceptable situation.”.

But...

So the question is, was the software not working as well as it should, or were advertisers just not using the tools available to them?

The more disturbing thing is that apparently these advertisers didn't know there was a problem until Media Matters published a story about it. The problem with this is that we don't know the extent of the problem, and frankly I don't trust Media Matters to be honest about it. Even worse, they lumped in other irrelevant stuff,
A strong smell of agenda here.

I hate to say it, but it almost seems like Media Matters don't believe in free speech, and their goal in publishing this article is to damage X's reputation so it goes bankrupt.

Twitter itself was bad enough, but now we have another organization trying to prevent a free speech platform from existing. And not just X.

YouTube is monetizing and helping raise funds for Patrick Casey, a white nationalist whose group helped organize “Unite the Right”Yeah, I noticed that. Pity Media Matters is concentrating on silly White Nationalist stuff instead instead of reporting on the truly pernicious misinformation on YouTube.
Click to expand...

Then go ahead and tell us where the lie is. No need to beat around the bush. Give us the quote.
 
Elon supporting free speech*

Gina Carano sues Disney and Lucasfilm over firing in suit paid for by Elon Musk

*For people he likes and agrees with.

In a new complaint filed this week, Carano claims she was “harassed and defamed” for having rightwing opinions and refusing to conform to those held by Disney and Lucasfilm. She also claims that her male co-stars were allowed to post derogatory statements about Republicans without punishment. Carano is claiming wrongful discharge and sexual discrimination, seeking $75,000 in damages and a court order that would reinstate her on the hit series.
Click to expand...
In 2023, Musk had pledged to help anyone who had faced employment discrimination over what they posted on the platform. In a statement, X’s head of business operations, Joe Benarroch, said: “As a sign of X Corp’s commitment to free speech, we’re proud to provide financial support for Gina Carano’s lawsuit, empowering her to seek vindication of her free speech rights on X and the ability to work without bullying, harassment, or discrimination.”

Carano wrote that she had the “deepest gratitude” for Musk assisting her in the case. “I am grateful someone has come to my defense in such a powerful way & look forward to clearing my name,” she added.
Click to expand...

Anyone? I'm skeptical.

Is it only right-wingers who get into trouble for the things they say on Twitter? I'm sure there must be other examples, including people who have lost jobs over it. Cannot think of any off the top of my head. Kanye West maybe, but he's right-wing too.
 
Puppycow said:
Elon supporting free speech*

Gina Carano sues Disney and Lucasfilm over firing in suit paid for by Elon Musk

*For people he likes and agrees with.



Anyone? I'm skeptical.

Is it only right-wingers who get into trouble for the things they say on Twitter? I'm sure there must be other examples, including people who have lost jobs over it. Cannot think of any off the top of my head. Kanye West maybe, but he's right-wing too.
Click to expand...

"...and a court order that would reinstate her on the hit series...."

What they would have to redo the whole season to add her "back" in?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
I read the Media Matters article. The gist of it appears to be that despite X CEO Linda Yaccarino asserting that “Brands are now ‘protected from the risk of being next to’ potentially toxic content" ads were still appearing next to 'content promoting Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.'

It also says that "IBM subsequently released a statement saying that it has “suspended all advertising on X while we investigate this entirely unacceptable situation.”.

But...

So the question is, was the software not working as well as it should, or were advertisers just not using the tools available to them?

The more disturbing thing is that apparently these advertisers didn't know there was a problem until Media Matters published a story about it. The problem with this is that we don't know the extent of the problem, and frankly I don't trust Media Matters to be honest about it. Even worse, they lumped in other irrelevant stuff,
A strong smell of agenda here.

I hate to say it, but it almost seems like Media Matters don't believe in free speech, and their goal in publishing this article is to damage X's reputation so it goes bankrupt.

Twitter itself was bad enough, but now we have another organization trying to prevent a free speech platform from existing. And not just X.

YouTube is monetizing and helping raise funds for Patrick Casey, a white nationalist whose group helped organize “Unite the Right”Yeah, I noticed that. Pity Media Matters is concentrating on silly White Nationalist stuff instead instead of reporting on the truly pernicious misinformation on YouTube.
Click to expand...

What did Media Matters publish that was untruthful?

What is your view on Musk's lawsuit itself? That Media Matters must now spend money to defend against? Does that not indicate that he does not support accurate and truthful free speech?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
I read the Media Matters article. The gist of it appears to be that despite X CEO Linda Yaccarino asserting that “Brands are now ‘protected from the risk of being next to’ potentially toxic content" ads were still appearing next to 'content promoting Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.'

It also says that "IBM subsequently released a statement saying that it has “suspended all advertising on X while we investigate this entirely unacceptable situation.”.

But...

So the question is, was the software not working as well as it should, or were advertisers just not using the tools available to them?

The more disturbing thing is that apparently these advertisers didn't know there was a problem until Media Matters published a story about it. The problem with this is that we don't know the extent of the problem, and frankly I don't trust Media Matters to be honest about it. Even worse, they lumped in other irrelevant stuff,
A strong smell of agenda here.

I hate to say it, but it almost seems like Media Matters don't believe in free speech, and their goal in publishing this article is to damage X's reputation so it goes bankrupt.

Twitter itself was bad enough, but now we have another organization trying to prevent a free speech platform from existing. And not just X.

YouTube is monetizing and helping raise funds for Patrick Casey, a white nationalist whose group helped organize “Unite the Right”Yeah, I noticed that. Pity Media Matters is concentrating on silly White Nationalist stuff instead instead of reporting on the truly pernicious misinformation on YouTube.
Click to expand...

Given that multiple people were able to replicate Media Matter's results with little to no results and given Galaxy Brain's propensity for lying about his companies' product offerings and their capabilities, the highlighted bits are, charitably, adjacent to libel.

I would say you need to get your head out of Musk's rear end but you're not listening to sense in this matter.
 
Puppycow said:
Elon supporting free speech*

Gina Carano sues Disney and Lucasfilm over firing in suit paid for by Elon Musk

*For people he likes and agrees with.



Anyone? I'm skeptical.

Is it only right-wingers who get into trouble for the things they say on Twitter? I'm sure there must be other examples, including people who have lost jobs over it. Cannot think of any off the top of my head. Kanye West maybe, but he's right-wing too.
Click to expand...
It certainly didn't apply to his own employees. Who are still owed half-a-billion dollars......
 
Musk has just put a tweet "I Love Puppies", given how well he's been managing his brand reputation I was half expecting it to have a recipe attatched.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Musk has just put a tweet "I Love Puppies", given how well he's been managing his brand reputation I was half expecting it to have a recipe attatched.
Click to expand...

The pic attached to it is that AI pic that, when you squint says "send nudes".

So, yeah, great thought by the great man. :oldroll:
 
I Am The Scum said:
Then go ahead and tell us where the lie is. No need to beat around the bush. Give us the quote.
Click to expand...

Darat said:
What did Media Matters publish that was untruthful?
Click to expand...
I'm not going to wise crack about the sound of crickets, because surely Roger has been occupied as he meticulously researches Media Matters in preparation for supporting his asinine fanboy presumptions thoughtful claims. Right?
 
Just checking in.
An informal poll, is there more free speech or less free speech in the west since Musk bought the platform?
People avoid binary yes no answers, but be brave and try.
 
Samson said:
Just checking in.
An informal poll, is there more free speech or less free speech in the west since Musk bought the platform?
People avoid binary yes no answers, but be brave and try.
Click to expand...

Less.

For example Media Matters being pursued in the courts for publishing a report X agrees was truthful and accurate (truthful and accurate according to X's lawsuit) but X didn't like. Actual legal cases have a chilling effect on organisations publishing truthful articles as they have to weigh in whether they can afford to defend themselves against a even groundless lawsuit.

How many times did Twitter file lawsuits against organisations publishing stories about Twitter it's owners didn't like prior to Musk's purchase?
 
Darat said:
Less.

For example Media Matters being pursued in the courts for publishing a report X agrees was truthful and accurate (truthful and accurate according to X's lawsuit) but X didn't like. Actual legal cases have a chilling effect on organisations publishing truthful articles as they have to weigh in whether they can afford to defend themselves against a even groundless lawsuit.

How many times did Twitter file lawsuits against organisations publishing stories about Twitter it's owners didn't like prior to Musk's purchase?
Click to expand...
Will answer properly later, I see people unbanned by Musk to first consider, it is complex.
 
Samson said:
Just checking in.
An informal poll, is there more free speech or less free speech in the west since Musk bought the platform?
People avoid binary yes no answers, but be brave and try.
Click to expand...
You want a binary answer to something that obviously isn't measurable?

Both you and Musk have made it abundantly clear that y'all only support free speech that you agree with. That means that you're raging hypocrites.
 
Samson said:
Will answer properly later, I see people unbanned by Musk to first consider, it is complex.
Click to expand...

Even with them added to the equation, less. In different directions than Darat pointed, Twitter was just better than X is on the free speech front. To point at two notable ways - the quality and the quantity of freely accessible content. To poke at an example of why for each, the credibility and trust issues that arose with the pay for checkmarks stuff fundamentally lowered the quality of free speech available via X. On the quantity side, the choice to restrict the ability to access threads for people not signed in alone greatly outweighed the effects on free speech of unbanning a miniscule percentage of problem posters.
 
varwoche said:
Both you and Musk have made it abundantly clear that y'all only support free speech that you agree with. That means that you're raging hypocrites.
Click to expand...

it's really that simple too. if you recognize, like old twitter management or most normal people, that to have a functional website that you need to moderate the users.

elon musk and the free speechers say they don't need to moderate the content and, well amongst many other crazy and dishonest things, that they were being oppressed. then he bought the site and started running it his way, which instead of simply being principled but wrong was unfortunately, and almost so immediately it was comical, moderating the content in a way that was more pleasing to him.

which is the part that makes people like samson just as bad as musk. this isn't a principled stance, you're using that as a mask for your real motives and it's dishonest.
 
Samson said:
Just checking in.
An informal poll, is there more free speech or less free speech in the west since Musk bought the platform?
People avoid binary yes no answers, but be brave and try.
Click to expand...

Less.

What's with the abrupt drop in fluency?
 
Darat said:
Less.

For example Media Matters being pursued in the courts for publishing a report X agrees was truthful and accurate (truthful and accurate according to X's lawsuit) but X didn't like. Actual legal cases have a chilling effect on organisations publishing truthful articles as they have to weigh in whether they can afford to defend themselves against a even groundless lawsuit.

How many times did Twitter file lawsuits against organisations publishing stories about Twitter it's owners didn't like prior to Musk's purchase?
Click to expand...
Less.
TwiX is attempting to silence journalists who produce inconvenient facts.
 
Darat said:
"...and a court order that would reinstate her on the hit series...."

What they would have to redo the whole season to add her "back" in?
Click to expand...

Or they could write in the charecter and the kill her off in the first episode she is in.
I note they replaced the C arino charecter in the Mando series with another
'Woman Warrior" charecter.
 
catsmate said:
Criticise TwiX and get suspended.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...suspended-after-writing-critique-of-platform/

Ah, "free speech". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I despise Musk and what he had done with Twitter, but he has a prefect right to decide what he allows on X. And people who disagree have a prefect right to drop the service.
And, yes, I don't want the government telling media what ican and cannot say.
We have gone that route, and it always ends with the death of free speech.
 
catsmate said:
Less.
TwiX is attempting to silence journalists who produce inconvenient facts.
Click to expand...

TeiX is not the government. What don't you understand about that?
I despise Twist for doing that, but think trying to use the power of the state to force them to put the jounalist back on is a case of the cure being worse then the disease.
 
dudalb said:
TeiX is not the government. What don't you understand about that?
I despise Twist for doing that, but think trying to use the power of the state to force them to put the jounalist back on is a case of the cure being worse then the disease.
Click to expand...

You do understand that nobody is arguing against Musk having the right to do what he likes with his property, right? We're discussing the rank hypocrisy of his claim to be all about unfettered free speech while his actions frequently give lie to that claim.

It's possible you need to do some homework, reading through this thread and its prequel.
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
You do understand that nobody is arguing against Musk having the right to do what he likes with his property, right? We're discussing the rank hypocrisy of his claim to be all about unfettered free speech while his actions frequently give lie to that claim.

It's possible you need to do some homework, reading through this thread and its prequel.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can have lower opinion of Musk then I do.
His now openly rooting for Putin just does the impossible: Made my opinion of musk even lower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom