Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrflowers | Hacker News Reader

> In this case it was specifically intentionally misleading

Exactly. What people don’t seem to realize is that neo-Nazi content is allowed, and there is not a extant mechanism for Twitter advertisers to make sure that their ads do not appear next to that allowed neo-Nazi content — this is why Twitter verified that fact in their lawsuit.

The lawsuit is meritorious because while there was no malfunction on Twitter’s part, they contend that accepting advertisers’ money and occasionally showing it next to neo-Nazi content simply isn’t that big of a deal. The misleading part is introducing the idea that advertisers should expect that not to happen.

I look forward to further lawsuits against users such as these

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/27/elons-censorial-lawsuit-...

View on HN

I'm a bit confused by your comment, because the link shows that they were indeed showing 'bad' content, but you say the lawsuit is 'meritorious' ie having merit.

The lawsuit doesn’t contend that the reporting is inaccurate, the complaint hinges on it being correct. Twitter is suing under the “who cares” and “shut up” doctrine.

>The lawsuit doesn’t contend that the reporting is inaccurate, the complaint hinges on it being correct.

This seems contradictory. You're saying that the lawsuit doesn't say the report is inaccurate, but rather that it's not correct?

Is your comment based on a distinction between the words accurate/inaccurate and correct/incorrect?

>Twitter is suing under the “who cares” and “shut up” doctrine.

You're saying that the lawsuit is meritorious, while conceding that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit? Am I missing something?

The lawsuit doesn't allege that Media Matters lied. Twitter/X (effectively) admit that the report was accurate, but that Media Matters followed users that post objectionable content and saw ads by companies that probably don't want to be associated with nazis et al, and reported on that factual outcome.

>The lawsuit doesn't allege that Media Matters lied.

Incorrect. For example, from the complaint[0]:

> As extensively explained above, these statements made by Defendant Media Matters were false.

Though to be fair, the lawsuit never bothers to explain how they're false or offer any actual evidence to that effect. It doesn't even attempt to cite the legal elements of any of the claims that are listed, nor does it establish any facts that one could even tangentially connect to the claims asserted.

I have a law degree (though I don't currently practice law). I doubt this lawsuit will survive a motion for summary judgment. I would even go so far as to expect that Elon/Twitter will probably be paying for Media Matters' attorney's fees for the utterly frivolous nature of the complaint.

[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...

I think the key phrase in this document is:

> leaving the false impression that these pairings are anything but what they actually are: manufactured, inorganic, and extraordinarily rare.

Those last two terms mean they're admitting Media Matters' allegations are true, even if they're uncommon.

> You're saying that the lawsuit is meritorious, while conceding that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit? Am I missing something?

No. Twitter is suing under the “who cares”, “shut up” and “no u” doctrine, which you can do in courts that do not have anti-SLAPP rules in place.

>The company filed its lawsuit in Texas, which is neither its nor Media Matters’ primary place of business. As legal blogger Ken White noted, a Texas filing protects X from claims that it filed a strategic lawsuit against public participation (or SLAPP), something it might face in its home base of California.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23970274/x-elon-musk-med...

> which you can do in courts that do not have anti-SLAPP rules in place.

No, this is incorrect. I believe you're unintentionally conflating two things. Not having an anti-SLAPP law just means that Media Matters won't have the luxury of quickly striking the complaint before having to respond to it.

It does not mean that vexatious litigants are free to file a lawsuit without making actual legal claims recognized by the courts.

Media Matters can (and will) still file a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, and will almost certainly prevail based on the clear deficiency of the complaint which doesn't even bother to cite the legal elements of the three claims it lists.

I like that you say that they cannot file a suit without making actual legal claims in the sentence before you say that the lawsuit that was filed didn’t even bother to cite the legal elements of the claims.

When I say that they can't file a suit without making actual legal claims, I obviously meant that the suit would be dismissed. Anyone can go down to the court clerk's office and pay the fee to submit a court filing. There is no mechanism to review whether a filing is frivolous before it gets filed with the clerk.

So yes, my statement was correct, you just aren't familiar with how it works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com