323
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
323 points (93.1% liked)
News
22876 readers
3831 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Can Xitter prove they didn’t serve those ads next to that content? If not I don’t see how they can win this.
Actually he released this statement admitting that it did happen, but wants us to think he’s been wronged because someone curated a feed then hit refresh a bunch of times, and only a couple of people saw it, so it doesn’t count.
And by this CNN report it sounds like he’s now misrepresenting their own findings.
Exactly. He's not saying it didn't happen but rather it's not typical.
He’s apparently saying they “manufactured images” in the lawsuit which is a weird way of describing “refreshed until our system natively generated this.”
Could be a messy enough distinction to confuse a judge or jury into thinking they were manufacturing it
Possibly. Hopefully not.
That's how Tesla won their most recent case with an autopilot failure. They acknowledge that the car did indeed drive itself into a tree. But that the company did not knowingly sell a defective product as they routinely update the vehicle.
That wasn't the argument that won the day for them, but it was the argument that allowed them to start on a way more technical footing that would allow them to misdirect the court to focus more on any driver impairments.
Musk's lawyers are insanely good at misdirection, they are some of the best at this one particular thing. Additionally, the case was file in an incredibly friendly court to Musk, so it's likely the Judge will be willing to go down the rabbit hole of insanely technical arguments while losing sight of the more broad questions.
There is a lot stacked up against Media Matters here.
All good points, except then they were on defense. Now they’re on offense trying to accuse someone else of malicious harm, when all MM did was create a new profile, then follow accounts and refresh. Sure, it was an abnormal amount of times unless you’re a caffeinated doomscroller, but otherwise they didn’t fake or insert anything. So it would seem like MM is on at least as good of defense footing here. Maybe.
Yeah, I dont see how twitters argument that "they followed nazis and looked at their pages enough to see these ads from major corporations" is some kind of slam dunk.
I mean, yeah, thats how you have your website setup. You let nazis on, you let people follow them, and you put ads next to nazis. Sounds like thats what twitter specifically designed to happen, and they are enraged that soemone proved it.
Pretty fucking stupid lawsuit.
Even that is wrong though. Every few posts, Nazi or not, is going to have an ad next to it. The numbers they are talking about are mostly irrelevant.
The statement from exTwitter is not showing total numbers. It's only referencing against what Media Matters showcased.
Yeah. That statement isn't doing him any good.
If 50 out of 5.5 billion were odds to win the mega jackpot lottery, sure. The chances seem insignificant and super low.
The problem is, 5.5 billion numbers are being rolled every day and 50 people out of a much smaller selection pool are going to win. So, if X has a total of 2000 advertisers that give a shit about ad placement, someone has a high chance of winning. Multiple times.
The actual odds are based off of the total number of advertisers and are only loosely based on total ad impressions. Here is what I mean: Every tweet, antisemitic or not, will be close to an ad and not all advertisers care where their ads land. If you find a Nazi, you will find an ad.
You can start doing the math about the actual distance a tweet is from an ad and stuff. Whatever.
This is the important bit: 50 out of 5.5 billion was just what Media Matters showcased and absolutely does not show the entire problem. It's much worse.
I hope MM has a statistics expert to point this out in court.
It's less about statistics and more about deception in my opinion. Numbers are almost always meaningless in papers that excessively use bold type and underlined words.
The function of the paper wasn't to prove anything. It was to get idiots focused on its false concept of freedom of speech. Even if my math assumptions are wrong, it doesn't matter and was never the point of the paper.
Hmmm, understood. Well hopefully they’ll get whatever expert they need to explain that.
“We think free speech is important unless that speech is being mean to us” is the biggest crybaby bullshit in the world.
That’s been his playbook since before buying Twitter.