The lawsuit argues that X technically did not "place" advertisements next to anti-Semitic and racist material, because the ads shown are driven by user data, and Media Matters chose to follow racist accounts alongside well-known brands.
If an individual user has specifically sought out the bad content though, they presumably don't themselves think it is bad, and so they don't have a negative reaction to it and also they don't have a negative view of an advertiser being associated with it. Is it still a problem for the advertiser? It's at least not a public perception problem anymore, more of an edge case of "do I want to encourage antisemites to shop at Target" kind of thing.
Yes, because it's being shown in association with the bad content. That was in your first sentence.
>It's at least not a public perception problem anymore, more of an edge case of "do I want to encourage antisemites to shop at Target" kind of thing.
That's a different thing. Twitter isn't selling antisemite-targeted ads to Target... that's the whole point. Twitter likely agreed with Target to not show its ads in relation to negative content like that. If that negative content is all that you see when you go on twitter, and twitter is still serving you ads, then they are serving their advertisers content in association with this negative content.
TECHNICALLY "placement" is a term of art for adtech which (in my experience working near my adtech coworkers and their products) can only be "successful" vs competitor adtech offerings if it is placed with consideration to the user's data when placing. https://www.google.com/search?q=adtech+term+placement
E.g. give the lady a dog advert if she previously expressed interest in dogs.
It seems like X could be proving the defense's case with their own filing.