Elon Musk vows to file 'thermonuclear lawsuit' as major advertisers desert X/Twitter

[Doc Socks Junior]

1 hour ago, Edumakated said:

Media Matters published a fake report to accuse twitter of antisemitism.   They purposely manipulated the algorithm creating fake accounts to follow other fringe accounts in order to manipulate the algorithm so that advertisers ads would show up on the fringe accounts.  They then went to the advertisers to try to get them to drop twitter.  That is why Elon is suing. 

Leftist propaganda at it's finest.  

You need to review the definition of "fake".

If the algorithm decides to spit out major advertisers next to content that advertisers don't like, and it's not a good look for the advertisers, then they should be able to pull their ads.

Free market and all.

They probably shouldn't then get investigated by Musk's pet attorney general. Government interference in business, and all that. But that's fine, of course, as long as it's your team.

Right wing authoritarianism at its finest.

[Edumakated]

33 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

You need to review the definition of "fake".

If the algorithm decides to spit out major advertisers next to content that advertisers don't like, and it's not a good look for the advertisers, then they should be able to pull their ads.

Free market and all.

They probably shouldn't then get investigated by Musk's pet attorney general. Government interference in business, and all that. But that's fine, of course, as long as it's your team.

Right wing authoritarianism at its finest.

Happy Thanksgiving!  Pass the casserole.

I guess you missed the part about manipulating the algorithm using a fake account following fringe posters so the ads would appear.  

Quote

In the lawsuit filed in a US district court in Texas, X claimed Media Matters “manipulated” the social media platform by using accounts that exclusively followed accounts for major brands or users known to produce fringe content and “resorted to endlessly scrolling and refreshing” the feed until it found ads next to extremist posts.

Media Matters’ report misrepresented the typical experience on X “with the intention of harming X and its business”, the company said in the lawsuit.

X said in the lawsuit that ads for IBM, Comcast and Oracle only appeared alongside hateful content for one viewer, which the company said was Media Matters.

“Data wins over manipulation or allegations. Don’t be manipulated. Stand with X,” Linda Yaccarino, the chief executive of X, posted on Monday.

Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, said on Monday his office was opening an investigation into Media Matters and that he was “extremely troubled” by allegations that the group manipulated data on X.

In other words, the only account which had advertisements shown along side of racist content was the Media Matters account they created and manipulated...   which they then used to go to advertisers to try to get them to stop advertising on Twitter.

Have a good day...

[Doc Socks Junior]

7 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

Happy Thanksgiving!  Pass the casserole.

I guess you missed the part about manipulating the algorithm using a fake account following fringe posters so the ads would appear.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Any interaction TwiX counts as "manipulating the algorithm". It's a spooky way of saying it, that's all.

Again, you need to review the definition of fake. No one is disputing it was a real account. Yes, they followed bad accounts. That's the whole point. Those are allowed in TwiX. Real people certainly follow and interact with them.

7 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

  In other words, the only account which had advertisements shown along side of racist content was the Media Matters account they created and manipulated...   which they then used to go to advertisers to try to get them to stop advertising on Twitter.

Have a good day...

That's not something you actually know. To be accurate, TwiX said that specific advertisements along that specific racist content was only seen by 1 or 2 accounts.

Quote

Ms. Yaccarino said in a statement that the X account that Media Matters had used in its research was the only account that saw some of the ads next to the antisemitic posts in question. In the case of Apple, its ad was placed next to an antisemitic post and viewed by another user, she added.

It's a pretty important difference, and looks like you fell for the corpo-speak. It's okay. I'm happy to help you learn!

Nothing to say on the weaponization of government entities against Musk's 'enemies'? Thought not.

[+Link of Hyrule]

5 hours ago, Agent0range said:

It literally shows there is more censorship.  80% of requests are honored now as opposed to 50% then.

Note that the article says nothing about self directed moderation (that is,  proactive decisions by moderators to remove content) - this was where the majority of moderation was taking place,  and where complaints about censorship were coming from, not from official requests to take down content.  Official requests from authorities are a tiny part of the overall moderation process. 

The left doesn't get a free pass anymore to act as they wish without the threat of retaliation. You think that means more moderation,  when what it really means is FAIRER moderation. 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Paranoid Android

[Doc Socks Junior]

16 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Perhaps you can tell me how this in any way contradicts what I said! Keep in mind that I didn't say there was zero moderation under Musk, only that it is better now than it was when anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders was silenced by left wing Twitter mods if they expressed an opinion they didn't like. 

So it's better now than it was in an imaginary fantasy state which you've made up.

[psyche101]

15 hours ago, acidhead said:

That, VOX("News") article is from 8 months ago. 

Haha 

 

I think it became a trash heap more than six months ago. It's only been downhill all the way since. What musk has done is chase away reputable sources and open the platform to aholes and morons. 

It's attention. Clearly the guy is an attention seeker. The super bowl, the cave rescue, the fight, reinstating accounts of jerks who deserved bans like MTG, and if you follow him you will see him occasionally sleaze it up, it's all look at me everyone aren't I awesome. Thing is as far as personality goes, he's quite a loser. I suspect if he wasn't rich, he wouldn't be popular. I'm fact he would probably be missing a few teeth with his mouth doing what it does. 

[psyche101]

16 hours ago, acidhead said:

Who are these people?

🤔

This is but one great example

 

My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk.

[acidhead]

29 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I think it became a trash heap more than six months ago. It's only been downhill all the way since. What musk has done is chase away reputable sources and open the platform to aholes and morons. 

It's attention. Clearly the guy is an attention seeker. The super bowl, the cave rescue, the fight, reinstating accounts of jerks who deserved bans like MTG, and if you follow him you will see him occasionally sleaze it up, it's all look at me everyone aren't I awesome. Thing is as far as personality goes, he's quite a loser. I suspect if he wasn't rich, he wouldn't be popular. I'm fact he would probably be missing a few teeth with his mouth doing what it does. 

Excessive vulgarity and insults are just an attempt to be transgressive and camouflage your own personal demeanor, temperament and aggressive behavior.  

Just curious ... Would you personally knock out Musk's teeth if you ever meet him face to face for, as you said, "Doing what he does?" Whatever that means. 

 

[+Link of Hyrule]

2 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

So it's better now than it was in an imaginary fantasy state which you've made up.

It's simply a fact that social media platforms have historically suppressed conservative views while simultaneously amplifying progressive views. X/Twitter is a thousand times better off today without the double standards. Maybe not as good as UM, but the moderation here is top notch, it's unfair to compare a Ferrari to a Datsun 200B.

You're simply living in a fantasy land if you think Twitter was impartial before Musk bought it. 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Paranoid Android

[Doc Socks Junior]

13 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

It's simply a fact that social media platforms have historically suppressed conservative views while simultaneously amplifying progressive views.

It's simply a fact that you've made this statement up based on your own personal views. That may be inaccurate, of course. Rather, I would wager, you've been told to think this by someone on YouTube. The irony is nearly perfect. Could give a chef's kiss to this.

https://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/bias-report-release-page

https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/is-big-tech-biased-against-conservatives-evidence-from-search-algorithms-says-no.php

I'm happy to help you learn. I hope you manage to take away something useful from this. At least, maybe a lack of focus on unsupported victimhood.

13 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

X/Twitter is a thousand times better off today without the double standards.

Maybe not as good as UM, but the moderation here is top notch, it's unfair to compare a Ferrari to a Datsun 200B.

I understand you're speaking in an exaggerated rhetorical sense here, but this statement about TwiX is both silly and unsupported, even so. Another made up statement.

13 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

You're simply living in a fantasy land if you think Twitter was impartial before Musk bought it. 

One rarely gets both the motte and bailey in the same post, but you're speedrunning it.

You'll have to provide a little more than an unsupported regurgitation of the 'facts' you've been served up on a different social media platform to hold any weight. 

[acidhead]

58 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

This is but one great example

 

My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk.

Doxxing an individuals location is a threat to their safety. Elon Musk became too complacent with his popularity because he had been a darling of the Progressive Left. He, like many others, have found out in real time that these extreme progressive liberals cannot be reasoned with and will resort to violence. This, the reason for the change in rules. 

 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, acidhead said:

Excessive vulgarity and insults are just an attempt to be transgressive and camouflage your own personal demeanor, temperament and aggressive behavior.  

I think you are being overly sensitive, it's history. Do you want links? I honestly doubt you are unaware of the incidents cited. 

1 hour ago, acidhead said:

Just curious ... Would you personally knock out Musk's teeth if you ever meet him face to face for, as you said, "Doing what he does?" Whatever that means. 

 

Depends on what he directed his mouth at. If he personally insulted me probably. If he was just shooting his mouth off in general I'd probably tell him to shut up or move on. 

[psyche101]

22 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Doxxing an individuals location is a threat to their safety. Elon Musk became too complacent with his popularity because he had been a darling of the Progressive Left. He, like many others, have found out in real time that these extreme progressive liberals cannot be reasoned with and will resort to violence. This, the reason for the change in rules. 

 

Aaaand he went back on his word didn't he. 

Then there's this thread

And 

Twitter suspends accounts of several journalists with no explanation

[acidhead]

26 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I think you are being overly sensitive, it's history. Do you want links? I honestly doubt you are unaware of the incidents cited. 

Depends on what he directed his mouth at. If he personally insulted me probably. If he was just shooting his mouth off in general I'd probably tell him to shut up or move on. 

You have a case of thin-skin buds! 

😁

[acidhead]

18 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Aaaand he went back on his word didn't he. 

Then there's this thread

And 

Twitter suspends accounts of several journalists with no explanation

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, acidhead said:

Happens sometimes, google link thing I think

Twitter suspends accounts of several journalists who had reported on Elon Musk

Accounts of tech journalists at CNN, the Washington Post, Mashable and the New York Times were suspended in quick succession on Thursday evening. All had recently published articles about Musk’s suspension of a Twitter account that had shared publicly available data about the movements of his private jet. Each of these articles had highlighted the tension between Musk’s stated commitment to “free speech” and his choice to ban an account that he personally disliked.

Ryan Mac, a New York Times tech reporter, wrote on a new Twitter account that he was given “no warning” before his account was suspended and that he had received no communication from the company about the reason his account was “permanently suspended”.

Some folks have asked so will try to answer here:
-This is the notification on my account.
-I was given no warning.
-I have no email or communication from the company about the reason for suspension.
-I report on Twitter, Elon Musk and his companies. And I will continue to do so. pic.twitter.com/Fz14nStH7U

— Silenced Ryan Mac (@MacSilenced) December 16, 2022

The Washington Post said in a statement that the suspension of their technology reporter, Drew Harwell, “undermines Elon Musk’s claim that he intends to run Twitter as a platform dedicated to free speech”.

Musk did not clarify in what way he believed the reporters who were suspended had shared his “exact real-time location”. The news articles about Musk that several reporters had published before their accounts were suspended did not include any information about his real-time location, or the location of any of his family members. The articles were focused on ElonJet, an account that had posted the location of the billionaire’s private jet as it travelled to different cities.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, acidhead said:

You have a case of thin-skin buds! 

😁

Why do you think that? 

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 hour ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

It's simply a fact that you've made this statement up based on your own personal views. That may be inaccurate, of course. Rather, I would wager, you've been told to think this by someone on YouTube. The irony is nearly perfect. Could give a chef's kiss to this.

https://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/bias-report-release-page

https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/is-big-tech-biased-against-conservatives-evidence-from-search-algorithms-says-no.php

I'm happy to help you learn. I hope you manage to take away something useful from this. At least, maybe a lack of focus on unsupported victimhood.

I understand you're speaking in an exaggerated rhetorical sense here, but this statement about TwiX is both silly and unsupported, even so. Another made up statement.

One rarely gets both the motte and bailey in the same post, but you're speedrunning it.

You'll have to provide a little more than an unsupported regurgitation of the 'facts' you've been served up on a different social media platform to hold any weight. 

Both articles you cited referenced "the algorithm". In fact, the first article is entirely about "the algorithm". That's a different type of censorship than mods removing posts. While both would technically come under the broad umbrella term of "censorship", the algorithm doesn't actually delete any content, it simply filters content so that some content appears more prominently in people's social media news feeds. That is a different kettle of fish to the type of censorship I'm referring to, in which moderators are taking a look at some topics and deciding that those topics are verboten and will be deleted on sight. Most of those topics are divided by political beliefs - take the lab leak theory, for example, which social media mercilessly deleted on sight if you even mentioned the possibility, and that lasted until Joe Biden became president, then it was ok to talk about it (and the FBI even suggested the lab leak theory was the most likely origin of covid-19). 

The second article is a bit more comprehensive, but even they acknowledge the lack of studies into the matter. Though the author gives away their own bias when they frame the statement as "no large-scale studies exist that demonstrate a conservative bias" when the truth is no large-scale studies exist that demonstrate there ISN'T one, either - no such studies exist, period! Such large-scale studies simply don't exist, and even if they did could not reliably determine the reasons for why the content is removed. 

So keeping in mind that there are no large-scale studies that support or deny how social media companies approach censorship based on ideology, I will continue to express what is clear and obvious to anyone who has ever used social media. You're living in a fantasy if you think censorship has been even-handed across the board. 

[Edumakated]

7 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Both articles you cited referenced "the algorithm". In fact, the first article is entirely about "the algorithm". That's a different type of censorship than mods removing posts. While both would technically come under the broad umbrella term of "censorship", the algorithm doesn't actually delete any content, it simply filters content so that some content appears more prominently in people's social media news feeds. That is a different kettle of fish to the type of censorship I'm referring to, in which moderators are taking a look at some topics and deciding that those topics are verboten and will be deleted on sight. Most of those topics are divided by political beliefs - take the lab leak theory, for example, which social media mercilessly deleted on sight if you even mentioned the possibility, and that lasted until Joe Biden became president, then it was ok to talk about it (and the FBI even suggested the lab leak theory was the most likely origin of covid-19). 

The second article is a bit more comprehensive, but even they acknowledge the lack of studies into the matter. Though the author gives away their own bias when they frame the statement as "no large-scale studies exist that demonstrate a conservative bias" when the truth is no large-scale studies exist that demonstrate there ISN'T one, either - no such studies exist, period! Such large-scale studies simply don't exist, and even if they did could not reliably determine the reasons for why the content is removed. 

So keeping in mind that there are no large-scale studies that support or deny how social media companies approach censorship based on ideology, I will continue to express what is clear and obvious to anyone who has ever used social media. You're living in a fantasy if you think censorship has been even-handed across the board. 

We can sit here all night listing all the right leaning or conservative views that were censored by big tech vs the left wing views...   facebook, youtube, twitter, etc all have shown significant left wing bias.  Anyone saying otherwise is clearly in a bubble, naive, or disingenuous....

[acidhead]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Twitter suspends accounts of several journalists who had reported on Elon Musk

Accounts of tech journalists at CNN, the Washington Post, Mashable and the New York Times were suspended in quick succession on Thursday evening. All had recently published articles about Musk’s suspension of a Twitter account that had shared publicly available data about the movements of his private jet. Each of these articles had highlighted the tension between Musk’s stated commitment to “free speech” and his choice to ban an account that he personally disliked.

Ryan Mac, a New York Times tech reporter, wrote on a new Twitter account that he was given “no warning” before his account was suspended and that he had received no communication from the company about the reason his account was “permanently suspended”.

Some folks have asked so will try to answer here:
-This is the notification on my account.
-I was given no warning.
-I have no email or communication from the company about the reason for suspension.
-I report on Twitter, Elon Musk and his companies. And I will continue to do so. pic.twitter.com/Fz14nStH7U

— Silenced Ryan Mac (@MacSilenced) December 16, 2022

The Washington Post said in a statement that the suspension of their technology reporter, Drew Harwell, “undermines Elon Musk’s claim that he intends to run Twitter as a platform dedicated to free speech”.

Musk did not clarify in what way he believed the reporters who were suspended had shared his “exact real-time location”. The news articles about Musk that several reporters had published before their accounts were suspended did not include any information about his real-time location, or the location of any of his family members. The articles were focused on ElonJet, an account that had posted the location of the billionaire’s private jet as it travelled to different cities.

 

All of them were reinstated two days later including the certified lunatic Keith Olbermann. 

 

[acidhead]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Why do you think that? 

"Depends on what he directed his mouth at. If he personally insulted me probably. If he was just shooting his mouth off in general I'd probably tell him to shut up or move on."

[acidhead]

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

 What musk has done is chase away reputable sources and open the platform to aholes and morons. 

What reputable sources has Musk chased away from X? 

List them:

[psyche101]

36 minutes ago, acidhead said:

 

All of them were reinstated two days later including the certified lunatic Keith Olbermann. 

 

 

Quote

The news articles about Musk that several reporters had published before their accounts were suspended did not include any information about his real-time location, or the location of any of his family members. 

Your link says Olbermann is still suspended. 

The articles contained no information as to his jets whereabouts. 

And it's still happening

 

[Mister Mysterious]

Greetings to all members of this fine forum. This is my first post, and I hope and pray that it won't be my last since I will first bring up the ADL, who have their anti-First Amendment sites set on X. The leftist pressure group claims to be against defamation, but they regularly defame people. They should be forced to remove "anti" from their name, as it's false advertising.

As for the lawsuit against MM, it couldn't happen to a "nicer" group of people. They engage in continuous campaigns to cancel and censor conservatives, and they twist the truth into propaganda pretzels to do so, so they must learn that false accusations have consequences, even in Clown World. It's funny that they never target leftists. It must be a coincidence. 

 

 

[psyche101]

27 minutes ago, acidhead said:

What reputable sources has Musk chased away from X? 

List them:

I'll name the one I'm notably p***ed about. Our ABC. 

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/abc-still-australias-most-trusted-news-source/

And if you do follow him closely you will see I told him he wouldn't have the foggiest about the ABC. Amazing he didn't ban me. It's considered the most trustworthy source of information by the majority of Australians.