Elon Musk's X Corp sues anti-hate group that says Twitter is toxic

midian182

Posts: 9,745   +121
Staff member
A hot potato: Twitter, or X as it's now known, has long had a reputation for hosting toxicity. That's unlikely to be lessened by the news that X Corp. has filed a lawsuit against a nonprofit group that says it aims to stop the spread of online hate and disinformation.

X Corp. claims in its lawsuit, filed in San Francisco federal court, that The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) is illegally scraping its servers and cherry-picking the most hateful posts it can find as part of "a scare campaign to drive away advertisers."

A report published by the group in June claimed that Twitter (as it still was then) fails to act on 99% of hate posted by Twitter Blue subscribers, suggesting the platform allows paying users to break the rules. Researchers reported hate-promoting tweets from Blue subscribers using the site's own flagging tools for hateful content. Four days later, it was discovered that none of the accounts had been removed and just 1% of the tweets had been deleted.

The CCDH concluded that Twitter failed to act on tweets containing racist, homophobic, neo-Nazi, antisemitic, or conspiracy content.

The response from X was that the group had used improper methodology in its study and that the research was false, misleading, or both. X also claimed that the Center is funded by Twitter competitors or foreign governments "in support of an ulterior agenda."

Yesterday, X posted an article titled 'Protecting the public's right to free expression,' in which the company says it believes people of all backgrounds and beliefs should have the right to freely express themselves, so long as they do so within the bounds of the law. X reiterated a previous claim that 99.99% of post impressions on the platform are healthy, which brought a fair amount of controversy at the time.

X goes on to say that the CCDH's claims have been encouraging advertisers to pause investment in the platform, and that the researchers' metrics were used out of context to make unsubstantiated assertions. It adds that the Center illegally scraped data, accessing it without authorization from Twitter partner Brandwatch, which offers market insights. Data scraping is something Elon Musk really doesn't like, and as such the company is suing the CCDH.

X also accuses the group of "targeting people on all platforms who speak about issues the CCDH doesn't agree with," targeting free-speech organizations, and attempting to deplatform users whose views do not align with its own ideological agenda.

In a response letter published today, the CCDH said X showed a disturbing effort to intimidate those who have the courage to advocate against incitement, hate speech, and harmful content online. It also accuses X of shooting the messenger. The organization said that while it did not review the 500 million tweets posted each day, it never claimed to have done so.

It was revealed in June that X's ad sales were down 59% year-on-year, reportedly due to advertisers' concerns over the increasing amount of hate speech and pornography on the platform.

Permalink to story.

 
Musk's influence over the tech world is not insignificant. He has his hands in basically every industry. Space flight, automotive, social media, AI, computer brain interfaces, new battery manufacturing techniques, robotics and I could probably keep going.

I'm not asking anyone to like Musk. Heck, these last 2 years he's been really pissing me off. The thing is people need to stop being surprised when he frequently makes news on a tech website because he has hands in basically every bleeding-edge tech related industry.
 
"...the CCDH said X showed a disturbing effort to intimidate those who have the courage to advocate against incitement, hate speech, and harmful content online. It also accuses X of shooting the messenger."

Per usual, leftist group claims being criticized for their behavior is intimidation, feigns impartiality, and accuses relatively free speech platform of hate. News at 11.
 
"...the CCDH said X showed a disturbing effort to intimidate those who have the courage to advocate against incitement, hate speech, and harmful content online. It also accuses X of shooting the messenger."

Per usual, leftist group claims being criticized for their behavior is intimidation, feigns impartiality, and accuses relatively free speech platform of hate. News at 11.
Per usual, leftie turned far-rightie, because far-righties hate, him stomps his feet and takes to court an entity that is not afraid to call out far-rightie because of his vitriolic crap. Far-rightie is not afraid to censor content far-rightie does not like on far-rightie's own "social forum" however, far-rightie does not see that as censorship.

More news at 10 - stay tuned and ensure you have enough popcorn. 🤣
 
I think some guys got it really wrong...
We have here examples of tweets with certain clearly hateful content (link's above).
They were reported and monitored and compared to previously reported and monitored tweets. Results showed the X reaction was much smaller than previously. Hence it is easy to compare and easy to see changes in approaching certain tweets.
Now, we don't really know full scope of the statistics gathered, nor if it was peer-reviewed research, but it gives some solid overall data. I'm more than happy to see a court case, where Musk lawyer will sit there and be saying: "Yes, Hitler was right, and yes, we see nothing wrong in tweets proposing killing people fighting for lbqt rights."

I'm very sure it will be easy for X to prove if they removing hateful tweets. Little less easy to prove that freedom of speech (which originally is a tool preventing government from censoring opposition...) allows attacking certain ethnicity or political opinions.
Really, this case would be madly amusing. I already see those argument: "you cant make analysis of our platform if you do that without our monitoring and in the way we allow". Or: "Your methodology is not valid. Only valid methodology is the one I approve".
 
I think some guys got it really wrong...
We have here examples of tweets with certain clearly hateful content (link's above).
They were reported and monitored and compared to previously reported and monitored tweets. Results showed the X reaction was much smaller than previously. Hence it is easy to compare and easy to see changes in approaching certain tweets.
Now, we don't really know full scope of the statistics gathered, nor if it was peer-reviewed research, but it gives some solid overall data. I'm more than happy to see a court case, where Musk lawyer will sit there and be saying: "Yes, Hitler was right, and yes, we see nothing wrong in tweets proposing killing people fighting for lbqt rights."

I'm very sure it will be easy for X to prove if they removing hateful tweets. Little less easy to prove that freedom of speech (which originally is a tool preventing government from censoring opposition...) allows attacking certain ethnicity or political opinions.
Really, this case would be madly amusing. I already see those argument: "you cant make analysis of our platform if you do that without our monitoring and in the way we allow". Or: "Your methodology is not valid. Only valid methodology is the one I approve".
IMO, the perfect assessment. Musk/X favors censorship, but only HIS censorship. In other words, he's a hypocrite.
 
IMO, the perfect assessment. Musk/X favors censorship, but only HIS censorship. In other words, he's a hypocrite.
You can pretty much bet that anyone who owns, operates or editorializes his own opinions on any social media or news program will espouse his own agenda and suppress anyone else's no matter which side of the fence he is on.
 
Back