STRIKINGdebate2, avatar

Why is it been appealed to the district court in Texas? X is based in California and media matters is based in DC? So why Texas?

MiscreantMouse avatar

Shopping for the right judge.


Elon wants a far right judge, and Texas and the Fifth Circuit is the place to look for one.

DarkGamer avatar

SLAPP lawsuit. There needs to be significant consequences for billionaires who abuse the legal system to silence criticism. Seems like an odd position for a, "free-speech absolutist,"'s private company to take.


I dream they win billions. And I dream that they use it to take other evil rich assholes down, too.


“As damages, you get Twitter.”



How in the flying fuck is Ken Paxton still in office again???




Truth is an absolute defense against libel, fucknuts.

If reality harms your reputation - that’s what reputation is for.


I read the complaint. Seems doomed to fail.

The underlying allegations, that Nazi content appeared next to advertisements by IBM and others, is literally true. Twitter can try and drum it up by saying Media Matters manipulated the algorithm by following Nazi supporters and refreshing the page, but it was still Twitter’s algorithm that showed the Nazi content next to the advertisements and it was still Twitter’s moderation decisions that allow Nazis to spread their ideology on Twitter. They don’t have to allow such content. They could fix their algorithm to easily filter out hate speech. They don’t want to.

Twitter makes three claims.

Intereference with contract, which requires proof of malicious or wrongful intent. Their evidence of malice is that the CEO of media matters said he was “at war” with conservative media. Yeah, at war with media that allows Nazi content or false conspiracy theories. That’s pretty weak evidence. I think the facts show that MMs intent was to perform a valuable public service as a media watchdog.

Second count is trade disparagement, which requires proof that Media Matters statements were false. The complaint tries to say that no other user saw what Media Matters saw, and that’s why it’s false, but then expressly admits that X has not confirmed if any other users saw what MM saw. Either way, what MM saw was true and accurate: Nazi content served up next to IBM ads by Twitter’s algorithm. The screenshots weren’t Photoshopped. It wasn’t a lie, it was literally true.

The third count is interference with prospective advantage. This requires the same evidence as above, intent and wrongful conduct.

Exactly what I expected this complaint to look like, Laden with far right conspiracy theories and victimhood.

capt_wolf, avatar

Essential for any nationalist regime - “Disparage and discredit the lying press.”

Trump’s literally been doing it for years, shouting “FAKE NEWS” at anything he doesn’t like and Musk’s been helping by hindering news agencies and trying to alter the truth since he bought Twitter.

Now that they’re getting caught doing nazi things, it’s going to be “WE’RE NOT NAZIS! WE’RE NATIONALISTS! IF YOU’RE AGAINST US YOU’RE AGAINST AMERICA! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! SEIG HEIL! oops…”

continues doing nazi things


Essential for any nationalist regime - “Disparage and discredit the lying press.”

I mean but “the press” does lie all the time


Elon may find a sympathetic judge though…

WashedOver, avatar

So this is about suing the agency out of existence?

With the shenanigans that have gone on with Twitter since being bought with the not paying of staff severance, vendors, or landlords, it’s getting like those that deal with Trump. I wonder if the Musk legal team will be paid?

I’m all for reasonable free speech. It should fall within the guidelines of how yelling FIRE! in a movie theater has consequences if people are hurt by it. Misinformation falls into this category if it hurts the general public with a purposeful lack of moderation.

It’s not been a total lack of moderation… There are reports of moderation occurring over things Musk doesn’t like and amplification of the things he wants (especially his tweets) in the algorithm that benefits him, so I’m not sure the defense of total free speech is a honest one here.

At the end of the day the misinformation, and horrible inaccurate things shared on Fox News, Rumble and Truth social are much worse and they seem to get a free pass with the we are entertainment defense so none of this really seems to matter?

If the lawsuit sees the light of day over the next several years it will be interesting how if it changes anything for the better or worse. Perhaps it won’t matter by then as we will be in the next phase of the New American Order and going after one’s internal enemies will be condoned as good patriotic practices…


I’m all for reasonable free speech. It should fall within the guidelines of how yelling FIRE! in a movie theater has consequences if people are hurt by it.

Well that’s a very simple explanation of a very complex subject.

If I call you a bi tch unjustly, that’s an incredibly rude insult that you might be hurt by. Will you remove my comment or is that free speech?

If I conduct research that finds that the Earth is round, which is contrary to what virtually everyone believes, is that “misinformation” or is that free speech?

If I present evidence that the Holocaust never happened (regardless of whether the evidence is legitimate) is that “free speech” or “misinformation”?

The concept of “free speech” is entirely about allowing people to say hurtful things, and things that may or may not be true. No one needs free speech to tell you “you look nice today”.

The problem is the advent and adoption of social media has led to the ability to spread misinformation like wildfire and without any fact checking. Previously information was spread by newspapers that relied on subscriptions, and people subscribed to newspapers that had the best reputation for investigating and finding the truth. There was usually a 24 hour news cycle, so everyone had at least some time to investigate the story. News just moved at a different pace and no one had to be the absolute first one to publish a story with zero details.

Now news sites are driven by clicks, and they will publish whatever drives clicks. And what drives clicks more than outrage? So outrage is what we get, day in and day out.


Doesn’t seem simplified at all. In fact, the yelling fire in a movie theater example is exactly how free speech is supposed to be applied, and in most cases in the past, has been applied.

helenslunch, (edited )

Mmkay, well you seem to be unable to answer my “simple” questions or offer any sort of explanation for not doing so.


Are you… are you dumb?


Would you like to contribute something to the conversation other than personal insults?


Nah, cause you seem to be dismissing everyone anyway.


If you’re not interested in a discussion, feel free to just not post anything.


In fact, the yelling fire in a movie theater example is exactly how free speech is supposed to be applied, and in most cases in the past, has been applied.

That's actually wrong. We tossed that test for incitement, which was called the clear-and-present danger doctrine, back in the 60s. Since then, inciting speech is only unprotected if it is directed to incite imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action.


You're missing the point of the lawsuit. It's a defamation action, and defamation is not a legally protected form of free speech.

In short, X is alleging that Media Matters (which is a private company, not a government agency) intentionally manipulated X's advertising algorithms to specifically display objectionable content, then knowingly and falsely claimed that it was something X was doing. None of this has anything to do with X trying to specifically moderate Media Matters, or anyone else for that matter. Moreover, defamation lawsuits are a pretty garden variety type of claim, and it's not something I would be surprised to see given the fallout that Media Matter's article generated.


This loser upvoted his own shit!


Billionaires OSFA solution for a multitude of problems, just SUE.


You have to admit, Elon claiming he’s the king of free speech and filing a lawsuit to silence a media company is pretty fukcing hilarious. Especially since it will implode.


“Free speech absolutist” means absolutely no accountability for what I say. “I just want people to think for themselves” means “I just want people to think exactly like me.”


“Free speech absolutist” means “I get to say what I want, and you have to listen to it.”

FlyingSquid, avatar

Either he’s going to pull out just before discovery or discovery will be amazing.

iAmTheTot avatar

I don't find it very funny at all.


It’s called dark humor 😉

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • DreamBathrooms
  • magazineikmin
  • hgfsjryuu7
  • Youngstown
  • InstantRegret
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • ethstaker
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • kavyap
  • everett
  • osvaldo12
  • Backrooms
  • JUstTest
  • cubers
  • Durango
  • tester
  • GTA5RPClips
  • mdbf
  • anitta
  • tacticalgear
  • modclub
  • normalnudes
  • cisconetworking
  • provamag3
  • Leos
  • lostlight
  • All magazines