Post New

Just started watching the CNBC interview.

It's nice everyone here has piped down about Elon.

ADL counseled.

Bibi met him.

All is good.


But oh man, I'm 1 minute into the interview. I consider myself totally 100% heterosexual but now I dunno.

Shit.

WiltonKnight: But oh man, I'm 1 minute into the interview. I consider myself totally 100% heterosexual but now I dunno.


Yeah, did you get aroused when Musk scoffed at advertisers leaving the platform because of antisemitic posts he amplified there?

"If somebody’s gonna try to blackmail me with advertising? Blackmail me with money? Go f---yourself. Go. F---. Yourself. Is that clear?"

Well, sure, tell advertisers that already think you're unhinged to "Go. F---. Yourself."

Musk went on to say that advertisers were killing the company by boycotting X. Andrew Ross Sorkin at the New York Times DealBook Summit said, umm, that's on you, dude, for promoting antisemitism.

Musk also earlier resurrected a tweet that validated the long debunked "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory but removed the tweet later.

Musk made other insane comments, too. Lots.

X CEO Linda Yaccarino was in the audience but it's unclear whether or not she had a stroke.

Yeah, go shake that hand.

The look on the CNBC guy's face was AWESOME.

And Elon was spot on. It IS blackmail. They don't like that a medium exists that allows for citizen journalism and they REALLY hate the Community Notes feature that fact checks left wing media BS in near real time.

Yes, all that was awesome.

I'd love to shake his hand.

But the ADL and Bibi get to do that, not me.

Repeat:

Dear Elon,
Please buy Fox, Hobby Lobby, Chick Fil A. Maybe get Trump to arrange your financing.
SIncerely,

His visit to Israel smacks of a guy who would like to be able to say 'Some of my best friends are Jewish"

'When somebody shows you who they are, believe it the first time.' (apologies to Ms Angelou)

His visit to Israel smacks of a guy who would like to be able to say 'Some of my best friends are Jewish"

'When somebody shows you who they are, believe it the first time.' (apologies to Ms Angelou)
*****

ADL giving "Counsel" to a repeat offender....who has lots of money....SMACKS OF STUFF TOO.

Ditto Bibi welcoming him with open arms.

Yes.....

Some realities .. . .are TRUE :)

Dope1: The look on the CNBC guy's face was AWESOME.

You mean that "are you insane" look? As a business and finance reporter, Sorkin knows the value of advertisers to the continuing existence of X.

Dope1: And Elon was spot on. It IS blackmail. They don't like that a medium exists that allows for citizen journalism...

Will you -- and the four dolts who recced your post -- please explain how a company deciding to pull its advertising after its product ads have repeatedly been displayed alongside actual Nazi propaganda or virulent antisemitism is "blackmail"?

Please tell us how it would be a smart business decision, and good for a company and its brand, to be associated with Nazi propaganda or antisemitism.

Dope1: Notes feature that fact checks left wing media BS in near real time.

I haven't seen a single "left wing media" outlet be context checked by X. The last one I saw was attached to a Marjorie Taylor Greene tweet that was Russian propaganda:

Readers added context

The "journal" Rep. Taylor Green is linking to as a source has been sanctioned by the US Government as a propaganda arm of Russian Foreign Ministry that spreads disinformation.

And hey, I'm still waiting for you to demand Trump be imprisoned for having 299 SECRET, TOP SECRET, Confidential, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) and Special Access Program (SAP) marked documents and for sharing a "plan of attack" document against another country with ghostwriters.

Anytime.

24/7 Trump owned - YOU

No, I will not dignify the Media Matters smear.

Why should I? Why should Elon? The fact that he sued them is enough. Along with a raised middle finger in their direction. I’ve no doubt that you’ve never seen anything on X/Twitter that conflicts with your programming: you are not a person who seeks out new things to learn nor is capable of seeing past your prejudices. It’s just not you.

I’m waiting for you to properly denounce Hillary! for her emails, to own up to your role in helping to spread Russian disinformation, for you to own up to the fact that the real home for antisemitism is on left, and probably for 50 other things. I’m not holding my breathe.

He’s so obsessed with Trump, he probably has a DT chia pet next to his bed. It’s unhealthy.

Dope1: I’m waiting for you to properly denounce Hillary! for her emails...

I've addressed Clinton's emails a number of times, so what's one more time.

Here's what the Justice Inspector General's report concluded after its investigation:

"There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified information. The emails in question were sent to other government officials in furtherance of the senders' official duties. There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton intended that classified information be sent to unauthorized recipients, or that they intentionally sought to store classified information on unauthorized systems.”

The three emails that were marked classified at the time they were sent -- the only emails with classification markings on her server -- concerned proposed talking points for Clinton when she called a foreign leader. The State Department later said the (C) markings should have been removed as a matter of course once Clinton decided to place the call but through "human error," they had not been deleted.

When Rex Tillerson was secretary of state, president Trump had him launch another investigation.

Tillerson's investigation concluded: There was no classified material in the emails, but that her use of a personal email server itself was a security violation. A letter sent by Tillerson's State department explained that Clinton had "no individual culpability" for the email security violations.

Next up, Pompeo launched a Diplomatic Security investigation in 2019 and determined that "a typical security violation involves premarked classified information discovered contemporaneously with the incident. None of the emails at issue in this review were marked as classified."

In short, Clinton's use of a private email server was a security violation but she did not intentionally mishandle classified information.

Now for Trump:

The indictment first covers classified documents retrieved by the National Archives (NARA), and which are not the basis of these charges. These are:

15 boxes provided by Trump to NARA in January 2022. These contained 197 classified documents: 98 at SECRET; 30 at TOP SECRET; the remainder at Confidential. Some additionally had Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) and Special Access Program (SAP) markings.

During the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago Club, a further 102 documents, recovered from Trump’s office and a storage room. These included 17 documents at TOP SECRET; 54 at SECRET; 31 at CONFIDENTIAL. Of these, Trump’s office held 6 at TOP SECRET; 18 at SECRET; and 3 at CONFIDENTIAL.

These documents were all clearly marked.

Of the nearly 300 classified documents taken by him, Trump was only charged for 31 documents in the indictment.

In summary:

Clinton was emailed improperly 3 marked classified documents -- all other documents later considered classified were reclassified after Clinton received them and were not considered classified at the time -- while Trump took nearly 300 top secret, secret, confidential, SCI, and SAP national intelligence documents which he left in an unlocked toilet and a ballroom, and which he openly shared -- at least some of them -- with ghostwriters and others at Mar-a-Lago.

So I agree that Clinton made a bad decision, one that cost her the presidency, but did not commit a crime. Trump though, faces four indictments and intentionally removed and retained some of the nation's most sensitive intelligence documents.


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22276277-2...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/08...

So I agree that Clinton made a bad decision, one that cost her the presidency, but did not commit a crime. Trump though, faces four indictments and intentionally removed and retained some of the nation's most sensitive intelligence documents.
****

Liberal Conceit and writing off and frowning upon huge parts of America....is what cost Hillary the Presidency.


And continue arrogance is why despite Biden in power, West Virginia owned you most of the term.

Lulz. So Trump's guilt but people on your team aren't.
Thanks for highlighting everything I've ever said about Team lib.

please explain how a company deciding to pull its advertising after its product ads have repeatedly been displayed alongside actual Nazi propaganda or virulent antisemitism is "blackmail"?

X is suing Media matters for fraud about this. This allegedly was misrepresented and made up by media matters.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/17257711916447...

X is suing Media matters for fraud about this. This allegedly was misrepresented and made up by media matters.

For those who want to read it, the complaint is linked below. I'm not sure they even manage to properly allege that the article misrepresented or made up anything, much less that such actually happened, but you can read for yourself.

https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/3428af...

"Virulent AntiSemitism"


If that is what it is.....

The ADL has just set precedent - that the way to deal with "virulent Anti Semitism"......is to counsel someone.

Ok.

Not my issue.

RE classified emails on Clinton's server versus classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, the only possible conclusion I can draw from the fact that some here persist in believing that the two are in any way equivalent is that they must have a massive short circuit storm going on in their brains. It's equivalent to believing that Jill with a hang nail has a comparable medical situation to Jack with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. <smhid>

RE classified emails on Clinton's server versus classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, the only possible conclusion I can draw from the fact that some here persist in believing that the two are in any way equivalent is that they must have a massive short circuit storm going on in their brains. It's equivalent to believing that Jill with a hang nail has a comparable medical situation to Jack with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. <smhid>

Indeed. One would have to be completely ignorant as to how government functions in literally every way to think that a sitting Cabinet official would be allowed to host a private server containing classified information in her personal residence with open access to literally anybody, like Anthony Weiner.

"Indeed. One would have to be completely ignorant as to how government functions in literally every way to think that a sitting Cabinet official would be allowed to host a private server containing classified information in her personal residence with open access to literally anybody, like Anthony Weiner."


Indeed, highly classified material was also found on Weiners personal home computer. All of Hillary's/Weiners materials were on a data network subject to hacking, unlike the paper documents stored in Mar a Lago. Aso, Presidents have traditionally had the ability to have sensitive documents after they leave office, Secretaries of State and former Senators/Vice Presidents have not .

boater: Indeed, highly classified material was also found on Weiners [sic] personal home computer.

Nope, nothing marked classified.


boater: All of Hillary's/Weiners materials were on a data network subject to hacking, unlike the paper documents stored in Mar a Lago.

Umm, what network isn't hackable?

No doubt you're as bothered by Ivanka and Jared (well, plus a bunch of other folks in the Trump administration) conducting official White House business through their personal, very hackable, email.

And thank God no one carries a device in their pockets that would enable them to quickly snap photographs of documents lying around the toilet or on the ballroom stage and instantly load them to a documents cloud.

And you do realize that more people wandered through Mar-a-Lago -- tens of thousands of members and guests who visited the "active social club" between the end of Trump’s presidency in January 2021 and August 2022.

And did you forget that Trump had been subpoenaed, claimed he had returned all of the documents, but actually retained a few dozen more and entered into a conspiracy to shield them from the government?


boater: Aso [sic], Presidents have traditionally had the ability to have sensitive documents after they leave office...

No, they cannot have "sensitive" documents, especially not national defense information with Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) and Special Access Program (SAP) markings.

And enlighten me: which presidents can show those top secret documents to ghostwriters and other idiots (like Trump did)?

Nope, nothing marked classified.


https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/report-at-lea...

There are five new classified emails among 147 new Abedin work-related documents released by the State Department on Friday, December 29, 2017.

Thirteen emails containing classified information were also found on the Weiner laptop computer that had already been released to the public. This classified material includes discussions about Saudi Arabia, The Hague, Egypt, South Africa, Zimbabwe, the identity of a CIA official, Malawi, the war in Syria, Lebanon, Hamas, and the PLO.

And Huma was sending classified stuff around willy-nilly also.

Alright.... Boater is in the house!

Are the conspiracy brothers getting the band back together again?

Lock her up!
Lock her up!
Benghazi!

Meanwhile, back at clown central, "Santos and his supporters -- who included Republican Reps. Troy Nehls, Clay Higgins and Matt Gaetz -- argued that the New York congressman's expulsion would set a dangerous precedent and is not reflective of the wishes of the voters who elected him.

"Every member expelled in history of this institution has been convicted of crimes or Confederate turncoats guilty of treason. Neither of those apply to me, but here we are," Santos said. "On what basis does this body feel that precedent must be changed for me? An American citizen, duly elected -- elected to represent the 3rd district of New York."

GO ELON GO!!!!

Lives to fight another day.....unharmed.

Precedent....

For those who want to read it, the complaint is linked below. I'm not sure they even manage to properly allege that the article misrepresented or made up anything, much less that such actually happened, but you can read for yourself.

But by simply being able to say they are suing they can convince many people that they were wronged. As you can see it is a strategy that is working.

"boater: Indeed, highly classified material was also found on Weiners [sic] personal home computer.

Nope, nothing marked classified."

Not true.

"boater: All of Hillary's/Weiners materials were on a data network subject to hacking, unlike the paper documents stored in Mar a Lago.

Umm, what network isn't hackable?"

Irrelevant

"No doubt you're as bothered by Ivanka and Jared (well... "

Off topic whataboutism

boater: Indeed, highly classified material was also found on Weiners [sic] personal home computer.

me: Nope, nothing marked classified.

Dope1: And Huma was sending classified stuff around willy-nilly also.

Here are the pertinent sentences of the letter from the FBI that confirms that nothing new and nothing containing classified markings was found on the Weiner laptop (link to full letter below):

Investigators ultimately determined that two e-mail chains containing classified information were manually forwarded to Mr. Weiner's account. Ten additional chains containing classified information also were found on the laptop computer as a result of backup activity. All twelve chains previously had been reviewed by investigators.

So...

1. Every one of the 12 e-mail chains was a duplicate, nothing new.
2. The FBI had discovered and reviewed all 12 previously and admitted (as I documented upthread) that none were correctly marked classified, as I wrote.
3. Most of the e-mails ended up on Weiner's laptop as a result of backups of electronic devices -- Abedin did not forward government e-mail "willy-nilly".
4. You're in a cult.

FBI Letter to Congress: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017...(1).pdf

But by simply being able to say they are suing they can convince many people that they were wronged. As you can see it is a strategy that is working.

Readers predisposed to wanting Musk's allegations to be true will repeat those allegations enough times that, as Goebbels observed, the allegations will take on a life of their own as (alt)facts.

Also, be aware that right wing anti-semites are encouraging the left wing pro-palestinian contingent for the sole self-serving purpose of intensifying anti-semitism. It's the old 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' strategy.

When the Isr/Pal conflict calms down, the right wing anti-semites will, once again, express nothing but loathing for those pro-pal leftists.

But by simply being able to say they are suing they can convince many people that they were wronged. As you can see it is a strategy that is working.

X has provided data (public) that Media Matter committed fraud to game the system.
As a non-profit organization it tried to manipulate data for political reasons.
My view is that Media matters is in trouble.

X has provided data (public) that Media Matter committed fraud to game the system.

How did Media Matters commit fraud?

From the complaint, they tested the truth of X's statements that major brands were protected from toxic content by doing the following:

1) They took an account and had it follow a bunch of other accounts that posted a lot of anti-semitic content, so that the anti-semitic content would show up in their account's feed; and
2) Ran that account through a bunch of refresh cycles so they could speedrun through all the ads to see if major brands showed up next to the toxic content; and
3) When that happened, they took screenshots of the results and posted them on the web.

None of that is fraud. None of it is "gaming the system" - it's exactly what you would do if you wanted to test whether Twitter's algorithms actually worked to prevent major brands' advertising from showing up next to toxic content. And MM proved they didn't - if you're online looking at toxic content on Twitter, Twitter's algorithms can put a major brand ad next to that content.

Musk is suffering the completely foreseeable consequences of his decision to implement a "speech not reach" policy on Twitter without being able to deliver the "not reach" aspect. Old Twitter used to remove toxic content that violated their "Hateful Conduct" rules, and used to remove users that regularly posted such content. Musk's Twitter allows both the content and the users to remain on the site. The "not reach" element presumes that Twitter can keep the toxic content and posters isolated away from the normie users of the site and ensure that major brand advertisers are altogether separated from the Hateful Conduct. The events that precipitated the latest advertiser withdrawal - Musk's exposure to and subsequent retweeting of anti-semitic content and MM's stress test of the advertising algorithms - show that Twitter can't deliver the "not reach" element.

I would gently urge all to please not conflate Judaism with Zionism, nor Palestinians with Hamas.

fd

None of that is fraud. None of it is "gaming the system" - it's exactly what you would do if you wanted to test whether Twitter's algorithms actually worked to prevent major brands' advertising from showing up next to toxic content. And MM proved they didn't - if you're online looking at toxic content on Twitter, Twitter's algorithms can put a major brand ad next to that content.

The events that precipitated the latest advertiser withdrawal - Musk's exposure to and subsequent retweeting of anti-semitic content and MM's stress test of the advertising algorithms - show that Twitter can't deliver the "not reach" element.


Thanks for explaining the complaint in laymens terms.

Even though I'm out of the water for a few weeks, Musk's filing is more than I care to wade through.

I would gently urge all to please not conflate Judaism with Zionism, nor Palestinians with Hamas.

Agreed.

I would urge all to also remember that 1) Jews have been under the gun by anti-semites in the middle east since organized religion began, and 2) anti-semitism has been increasing steadily for both anti-zionist and plain old bigoted reasons across the entire diaspora despite the pogroms and holocaust.

None of that is fraud.

It is fraud because they knew what they wanted and devised a biased scheme for it.
However, X has the exact data about what ads were shown when and the facts are different than what Media Matters reported.
Media Matters lied !

Texas AG @KenPaxtonTX is investigating Media Matters for potential fraudulent activity

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1726763276...

It is fraud because they knew what they wanted and devised a biased scheme for it.

How is their scheme biased? They wanted to test Twitter's claim that major brands' ads wouldn't be placed next to toxic content. They set up an account that would show a lot of toxic content, and then checked to see whether any major brand ads showed up. Twitter placed major brand ads next to the toxic content - despite public assurances that those brands were protected against such placement.

However, X has the exact data about what ads were shown when and the facts are different than what Media Matters reported.
Media Matters lied !

How are the facts different from what Media Matters reported? What were their lies?

How is their scheme biased?

They self planted images of Hitler in their own fake accounts they created in the posts they created.
Then they counted and over reported the number of times the "ads were shown" next to images of "Hitler images".
example was 3 IBM ads next to Hitler image in 5 Billion posts 2 of which were viewed by Media Matters themselves.

This all reeks of "gotcha"

Media Matters is a mouthpiece for the far left masquerading as a watchdog with money from people like Soros.

Courts will decide.

They self planted images of Hitler in their own fake accounts they created in the posts they created.
Then they counted and over reported the number of times the "ads were shown" next to images of "Hitler images".
example was 3 IBM ads next to Hitler image in 5 Billion posts 2 of which were viewed by Media Matters themselves.

How is that biased? And more to the point, how is that fraud or defamation?

If you want to test whether Twitter's algorithms actually prevent major brand's ads next to pictures of Hitler, you need to set up an account that will have pictures of Hitler into it. They're not testing whether typical users will frequently - or even ever - see pictures of Hitler. They're testing whether the Twitter "speech not reach" algorithms will prevent the ads from being put next to Hitler. It's not really relevant whether there were 5 or 5 billion non-Hitler posts on the site at the time; what they're testing is what the software does with the Hitler images.

It doesn't matter how uncommon the occurrence is. To use a ridiculous example, if someone claims that their truck body is bulletproof, you would test that claim by taking a truck and shooting bullets at it, and reporting the results. It doesn't matter that it's insanely unlikely that the average truck being driven by the average user would ever get shot at. It doesn't matter that 99.99999% of the time that someone's driving the truck, it's not being shot at. You're testing the claim about how the product will respond to a specific situation, so you recreate the specific situation that the company has made the claim about to see what happens.

Old Twitter tried to protect brands from having their ads next to Hateful Conduct by removing Hateful Conduct, and the posters who post it, from their site. Musk's Twitter changed that policy, allowing the Hateful Conduct (and the posters) remain on site - but claimed that it had precautions in place to protect the major brands from being exposed to the Hateful Conduct. MM showed that those precautions don't guarantee that the brands will be protected. Musk showed that toxic content can still get massive exposure, because if power users (like him) that choose to consume toxic content choose to retweet it, it can be seen by millions. It's hardly surprising that major brands decided to reconsider whether Twitter is a safe venue for their brand-building.

If you want to test whether Twitter's algorithms actually prevent major brand's ads next to pictures of Hitler, you need to set up an account that will have pictures of Hitler into it. They're not testing whether typical users will frequently - or even ever - see pictures of Hitler. They're testing whether the Twitter "speech not reach" algorithms will prevent the ads from being put next to Hitler. It's not really relevant whether there were 5 or 5 billion non-Hitler posts on the site at the time; what they're testing is what the software does with the Hitler images.

Media Matters wrote some code with the express intent of finding a corner case on Twitter where you could see Hitler or something next to an iPhone ad or whatever. After running through a billion tries they got something like 3 hits and then launched their PR campaign.

The PR campaign had the specific intent of smearing X and making the claim that, "Look, advertisers, your images are going to appear right alongside Hitler!!". That's not illegal although it is 100% sleazy.

Musk's Twitter changed that policy, allowing the Hateful Conduct (and the posters) remain on site - but claimed that it had precautions in place to protect the major brands from being exposed to the Hateful Conduct

Correction: Old Twitter's "Hateful conduct" stomped on speech from the right side of the aisle. New Twitter's Hateful Content is intended to actually target hateful content.

Media Matters wrote some code with the express intent of finding a corner case on Twitter where you could see Hitler or something next to an iPhone ad or whatever. After running through a billion tries they got something like 3 hits and then launched their PR campaign.

No, they didn't. Or at least, not according to the complaint.

The complaint doesn't allege that MM wrote any code. They took an account, and set it to follow a bunch of folks who post "hateful content." They then just scrolled and refreshed their feed. Not by a billion tries, either - per the complaint, they engaged in activity that generated about 13-15 times more ads per hour than a "typical" user. More, but not a crazy amount more.

They didn't "hack" the system. That's actually....a pretty reasonable way to test whether Twitter's algorithms really do keep major brand ads away from toxic content? Make an account that has a lot of toxic content in the feed and see whether major brand ads show up? And just speed run through the ads to see if it happens? So that they can see in a few hours what someone who was sampling a lot of toxic content might see over the course of a week?

Correction: Old Twitter's "Hateful conduct" stomped on speech from the right side of the aisle. New Twitter's Hateful Content is intended to actually target hateful content.

Even if true, it's not really relevant. Twitter's old policy on Hateful Conduct - which certainly included anti-semitic content - was to remove it from the site. Twitter's new policy on Hateful Conduct - which will still include anti-semitic content - is to leave it on the site and allow the posters to keep posting and readers to keep reading it, but "quarantine" it away from major brands and normie users. Clearly, that approach doesn't guarantee results.

How is that biased?

Texas Attorney General has launched a criminal and civil investigation for committing fraud against Media matters.

Moreover, more investigations and cases coming from other states.

Music is just starting.

Texas Attorney General has launched a criminal and civil investigation for committing fraud against Media matters.

Which doesn't address why you think it's biased. What it is about their investigation into Twitter's protective algorithms do you think was wrong?

Which doesn't address why you think it's biased.

It is not bias. It is FRAUD !

The allegation is that they made it up.
X engineers has different data and can prove it (part of the lawsuit).
They were not able to replicate what Media matters is reporting.

The allegation is that they made it up.
X engineers has different data and can prove it (part of the lawsuit).
They were not able to replicate what Media matters is reporting.

What did they make up? What is it that X engineers were unable to replicate?

You can find a copy of the complaint at the below link. I doesn't say anything about X not being able to duplicate what they reported, or that they "made up" the images that they published. I think you might be misinformed....

https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/3428af...

The complaint doesn't allege that MM wrote any code. They took an account, and set it to follow a bunch of folks who post "hateful content." They then just scrolled and refreshed their feed. Not by a billion tries, either - per the complaint, they engaged in activity that generated about 13-15 times more ads per hour than a "typical" user. More, but not a crazy amount more.

A sophisticated operator would have written a script - code, if you will - to do just that.

A sophisticated operator would have written a script - code, if you will - to do just that.

But they didn't. They created an account. Which is what people do on Twitter if they want to use the service - they access it through an ordinary account, not through any special code or script. They weren't trying to be a "sophisticated operator."

If you write out code to access the Twitter service, instead of creating an account, you might be able do things that aren't always possible within an ordinary account. But MM didn't do that. Why did you think they did?

Texas AG @KenPaxtonTX is investigating Media Matters for potential fraudulent activity


Is he really??? The guy who was lucky to have gotten a not-guilty verdict when he was impeached in Sept for obstruction of justice, bribery and abuse of office? And is now facing trial in April for security fraud? This stems from 2011 when Paxton tried to solicit investors in a McKinney technology company without disclosing that it was paying him to promote its stock.

Music is just starting.

Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi

Her e-mails!

Whitewater!!

Yawn.

But they didn't. They created an account. Which is what people do on Twitter if they want to use the service - they access it through an ordinary account, not through any special code or script.

Sigh. Lawyers. :)
You write a script (code) to load an account, auto tweet something, auto refresh, etc. etc. etc.

What did they make up?


Fake data in the report.

You write a script (code) to load an account, auto tweet something, auto refresh, etc. etc. etc.


aka, posting. aka sharing.

Nothing illegal or fraudulent about posting, sharing, retweeting.

If ads show up next to things that are posted shared, retweeted, then that's what happened.

Not fraudulent. Not illegal.

Dope1: Sigh. Lawyers. :)
You write a script (code) to load an account, auto tweet something, auto refresh, etc. etc. etc.

Well, albaby1 gave you a link to the legal filing, so quote that allegation, please. Oh wait, it's not there. Here's what X claims:

8. Media Matters executed this plot in multiple steps, as X's internal investigations have revealed. First, Media Matters accessed accounts that had been active for at least 30 days, bypassing X's ad filter for new users. Media Matters then exclusively followed a small subset of users consisting entirely of accounts in one of two categories: those known to produce extreme, fringe content, and accounts owned by X's big-name advertisers. The end result was a feed precision-designed by Media Matters for a single purpose: to produce side-by-side ad/content placements that it could screenshot in an effort to alienate advertisers.

9. But this activity still was not enough to create the pairings of advertisements and content that Media Matters aimed to produce.

10. Media Matters therefore resorted to endlessly scrolling and refreshing its unrepresentative, hand-selected feed, generating between 13 and 15 times more advertisements per hour than viewed by the average X user repeating this inauthentic activity until it finally received pages containing the result it wanted: controversial content next to X's largest advertisers' paid posts.

Basically, X claims that Media Matters figured out how to get various companies' product ads to appear "adjacent to racist, incendiary content" more often than it's supposed to rather than "adjacent to content scoring above the Global Alliance for Responsible Media’s brand safety floor."

The companies have said, well, sorry, we don't EVER want that to happen, so bye.

dividends20: Fake data in the report.

X doesn't allege there's any fake data in the report.

Oh wait, it's not there.

Evidently you don't know what scripts do either. Start here:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8700921/fetchi...

Run along, now.

aka, posting. aka sharing.

Nothing illegal or fraudulent about posting, sharing, retweeting.

If ads show up next to things that are posted shared, retweeted, then that's what happened.

Not fraudulent. Not illegal.

True. All it does is speed it up so in one week you get 13-15 weeks worth of movement through the account. Hard to see anything illegal with that. Algorithms still work the same way so any results would be valid.

"I mean"... since that seems to be a modern little meme phrase...
is it time to just call it on X/Twitter/"anti-disinformation rejected" / free speech whatever it is...
and say, "don't go away mad, just go away"?

The money's been made, Jack Dorsey is a multi-billionaire, many coders and less valuable hangers on are rich, and way way WAY too much time and taxpayer-paid government oversight/hush hush influence and corporate energy has been put into that advanced IM/paging system.

I hope I'm not the only one that finds the whole thing tiresome. Just pull the plug.

(yes there has been some benefit to it for emergency services and public service alerts etc.)

It is fraud because they knew what they wanted and devised a biased scheme for it.

You sure are working hard at trying to justify X's acceptance of hate speech. Fine. But those advertisers have EVERY RIGHT not to have their products associated with that shit.

You write a script (code) to load an account, auto tweet something, auto refresh, etc. etc. etc.

Sure - but is there any evidence that they actually did that? As opposed to just loading their account and scrolling and refreshing it the way virtually everyone just uses Twitter?

Again, from the complaint there's no indication that they did anything particularly sophisticated or complicated. They took an account, had it follow a bunch of folks who post anti-semitic stuff, and scrolled through until they saw some major brand ads next to the Hitler pics. There's not even an allegation that they spent a particularly long amount of time doing it. It's something you could have an intern spend an hour or two doing....no script necessary.

Fake data in the report.

What data in the article were fake?

Sure - but is there any evidence that they actually did that? As opposed to just loading their account and scrolling and refreshing it the way virtually everyone just uses Twitter?

If they have better things to do with their time they did.
But it's MediaMatters, so it's 99% likely they had some intern sit there and push the REFRESH button 10,000 times.

Here's some great survey data.

One of the more offensive things here in this whole thing is that we're being asked to accept the premise that X is the most antisemitic platform there is. Which begs the question: Is that true?

Since "Elon is an antisemite" is a left wing creation, then the answer is likely no.

https://twitter.com/antgoldbloom/status/1730255552...

A new survey suggests TikTok is a meaningful driver of a surge in antisemitism. #TikToxic

Spending at least 30 minutes a day on TikTok increases the chances a respondent holds antisemitic or anti-Israel views by 17% (compared with 6% for Instagram and 2% for X).

Hmm. Interesting data. Way more toxic material on TikTok and Instagram (which is also the home for child predators).

Yet X is targeted. Why?

Yet X is targeted. Why?

Answering my own question:

Because the advertising ban isn't about antisemitism. It's about shutting down X and putting 100% of social media back under the thumb of traditional Big Tech, who don't give a rip one way or the other about the morality of their content. What they care about is control: control over who sees what, control over who says what.

Media Matters executed this plot in multiple steps

I have to wonder which right wing pundit chose the words that are being regurgitated all over the right wing socialsphere; they plotted! they executed! So eeeevil.

Sounds so nefarious! So diabolical! So insidious.

Mom n' Dad plotted to hide our presents where they thought we wouldn't find them before Christmas morning.

My friends plotted a surprise birthday party, but their execution was sloppy.

It is fraud because they knew what they wanted and devised a biased scheme for it.


They wanted to see if the X algorithm caused specific ads to appear next to specific content.

That's a legitimate test; not fraud.

If it was fraud, you ought to support it same as you support OrangeJesus' collection of fraud settlements.

But those advertisers have EVERY RIGHT not to have their products associated with that shit.

That seems to obvious.

Next the poster is going to tell me that since I'm not signed up with 'X' that I am opposing free speech, and I should be required to sign up.

Absurd.

And what's also interesting about this whole thing this:

All the pro-Palestinian antisemitic protestors/rioters out there. What platform(s) are they using to spread their messages?

X? Partially. But TikTok dominates.

Yet X is on the boycott list and TikTok is not.

An inquiring mind would wonder why, but we don't have very many of those in society any longer.

X? Partially. But TikTok dominates.

Yet X is on the boycott list and TikTok is not.

You seem to be missing the point. Ads popped-up next to Hitler pictures (and other objectionable content, per the advertiser). 'X' didn't fix it, so the advertisers pulled their ads. I'm sure if the same thing was happening on TikTok, they'd pull them there, also. Further, some may not wish to be associated with a Musk venture given his reportedly-racist comments (I don't pay attention to most of that noise, so am not sure all that he said...just excerpts...and I don't care...advertisers are free to place ads -or not- anywhere they like).

Advertisers are concerned about losing eyeballs. I have my own reasons for not being on FB, or "X", or TikTok, or any of that. Advertisers would rather I be on those platforms, because it's another pair of eyeballs. Anything that would drive eyeballs away, or taint their image for their target demographic, is contrary to the interests of the advertisers. Lose enough eyeballs, or get associated with -for example- photos of Hitler, and they can lose market share. So they pull their ads.

It's just business to them. Corporations are sociopathic. Very few have morals. They just don't want their customers to go away.

You seem to be missing the point.
Am I? No. See the bolded part below.
I'm the only one who *gets* the point.

Ads popped-up next to Hitler pictures (and other objectionable content, per the advertiser). 'X' didn't fix it, so the advertisers pulled their ads.

After Media Matters rigged a test such that their ads would show up next to the bad content. What happens if they did TikTok or Instagram?

It's just business to them. Corporations are sociopathic. Very few have morals. They just don't want their customers to go away.

And right now, they're jumping on the woke bandwagon again in an attempt to cancel Elon; meanwhile, other platforms that they advertise on are far WORSE with respect to antisemitic and other bad content like child exploitation and yet these same outfits aren't cancelling their ads there. I can't respect that.

If true (and you provide no credible evidence, but I admit I don't know), it's still a matter of where they place the advertising. They get to choose, not you or me.

If they truly are on the "woke" bandwagon, as you say, the "woke" would be cancelling other platforms, too. So I'm skeptical of that claim.

And, as albaby (and others) have said repeatedly, Media Matters isn't alleged to have done any such thing. Read the filing albaby was nice enough to dig up for you. You're just making that up. (Sorry to be blunt, but even the plaintiff lawyers aren't alleging what you claim.)

If they truly are on the "woke" bandwagon, as you say, the "woke" would be cancelling other platforms, too. So I'm skeptical of that claim.

No they wouldn't. Woke isn't about principle. It's about control.

Were woke about principle, Instagram and TikTok would have been dumped a long time ago. But they haven't been. Why?

(Sorry to be blunt, but even the plaintiff lawyers aren't alleging what you claim.)

What am I claiming? I've not made the code part the core of my argument. You (and others) are focusing on that while ignoring the main part of the issue. The main part of the issue is the hypocrisy.

One of the more offensive things here in this whole thing is that we're being asked to accept the premise that X is the most antisemitic platform there is.

No, you're not.

Advertisers aren't making their decisions based on whether X users are, or are not, more antisemitic than those of other platforms. They're reacting to three things:

1) The owner and de facto CEO is personally posting his agreement with anti-semitic tropes; and
2) The site's mechanisms to prevent major brand ads being shown next to toxic content can't safeguard that from happening; and
3) The owner and de facto CEO has said he doesn't care about, and won't address, those concerns.

It's not a boycott, and it's not based on X being "the most antisemitic platform there is." Advertisers are simply reacting to Musk's unwillingness to do basic things to protect their brands. Like not personally posting agreement with antisemitic content (to 100+ million followers), or to actually remove serial violators of their "Hateful Conduct" rules rather than ineffectually try to cordon them off. They don't really care whether there exist some specific ways to measure anti-semitism that might favor Twitter vs. other platforms in general - they want the "CEO" to take their brand safety seriously and keep their specific companies protected.

Musk is trying to reframe this away from these issues on to more favorable ground. But X isn't being "targeted" because of any generalized level of antisemitism on the site. X is telling their paying customers to f- off, and so they are.

No, you're not.

We're not? "Elon is an antisemite" isn't a thing now?
Yes, it is. That's what fueled this latest boycott attempt.

1) The owner and de facto CEO is personally posting his agreement with anti-semitic tropes; and
2) The site's mechanisms to prevent major brand ads being shown next to toxic content can't safeguard that from happening; and
3) The owner and de facto CEO has said he doesn't care about, and won't address, those concerns.

The full context of Elon's statement point to the ADL points to more I am deeply offended by ADL’s messaging and any other groups who push de facto anti-white racism or anti-Asian racism or racism of any kind. He's had a beef with them for a long time. That statement isn't antisemitic in any way.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/16...

#2 actually goes toward my argument. Media Matters had to set up a specific procedure to unify the ads and the bad content. But Instagram and TikTok are much worse. Why aren't people worked up over them?

#3 is Elon saying that he won't respond to blackmail, not to the concerns of advertisers. And he specifically was referring to now-outgoing Disney CEO Bob Iger, who is a woke idiot who's managed to piledrive several of Disney's most beloved franchises in his pursuit of THE MESSAGE.

No, Musk is being held to a standard that the other platforms aren't in such a way for places like Apple to appeal to have halos around their heads.

It's not a boycott

LOL. It walks like one and it quacks like one. Again: TikTok teaches kids how to eat TidePods, steal Kias and is where all the From The River To The Sea People are hanging out. Why aren't its ads cancelled?

Were woke about principle, Instagram and TikTok would have been dumped a long time ago. But they haven't been. Why?

Because it's not about woke.

Mid- and upper-level advertising executives in major companies are deeply concerned with protecting their brands. Not about advancing a woke agenda, not about The Message - they want to keep their jobs and get promotions and (to do that) help their companies make more money.

So they are going to be reluctant to advertise on a platform if their brand can get caught up in a shotstorm. If their specific brands and logos get placed next to toxic content. If the de facto CEO is personally posting toxic content. If the company demonstrates over and over again that it is indifferent, possibly even hostile, to advertisers' business concerns about these issues.

Other platforms have their own issues - but Mark Zuckerberg and Liang Rubo aren't personally posting favorable comments about anti-semitic contents. At least they have policies and rules that are efforts to throw Hateful Content (and the users that regularly promote it) off their sites. So that if something goes wrong and the VP for internet advertising gets hauled into the CMO's office to explain what happened, he's got something he can point to.

Look at it this way - the advertisers that are leaving now are among the least sensitive to issues of 'wokeness' in their social media platform buys, because these are the ones that stayed with Musk for more than a year. Most of the advertisers that left the site did so last year, after Musk changed all the content policies and gutted the safety teams that were in place to protect advertisers. The ones that were left were the ones that were willing to give him a chance, to see if his "speech not reach" policy wouldn't blow up in his face. But it did, and when they got concerned about it he told them to f- off, so now they're gone.

Must needs to contain the brand damage somehow, so he's pivoting to position this as a "woke" thing. Which (again) doesn't make a lick of sense, because these are the advertisers that stayed with him, so it's both a "woke" thing and a "hypocrisy" thing, because these advertisers didn't and haven't act like they were concerned about woke.

Because it's not about woke.

So you want your brand advertised on a platform know for child exploitation, such as Instagram? Or how about the platform that's taught the world over how to steal Kia cars?

Other platforms have their own issues - but Mark Zuckerberg and Liang Rubo aren't personally posting favorable comments about anti-semitic contents. At least they have policies and rules that are efforts to throw Hateful Content (and the users that regularly promote it) off their sites.

Hmm. Again, where are all the From The River To The Sea rally people posting their stuff?

Look at it this way - the advertisers that are leaving now are among the least sensitive to issues of 'wokeness' in their social media platform buys, because these are the ones that stayed with Musk for more than a year.

Huh? Apple is one of the #wokest companies out there.

I'll agree with one point: since the media is clearly pumping the narrative that X is now a total cesspool of hatred and these companies are sensitive to that, it's natural they'd react in some way. However, by leaving huffily like this they're playing to the woke virtue signaling crowd in an effort to score brownie points.

We're not? "Elon is an antisemite" isn't a thing now?

"Elon is an antisemite" isn't "Twitter is the most antisemitic platform." It's about whether Elon personally chooses to believe anti-semitic tropes about Jewish Replacement Theory. Pick the least antisemitic platform that exists - if the CEO started personally posting anti-semitic beliefs, a lot of people would think that such CEO was anti-semitic, and it would be utterly irrelevant whether the platform users were anti-semitic.

Media Matters had to set up a specific procedure to unify the ads and the bad content. But Instagram and TikTok are much worse. Why aren't people worked up over them?

Because they're not much worse. A survey that shows whether individual users get more antisemitic after using various platforms doesn't say anything about whether those platforms are successful at protecting major brands from being placed next to toxic content.

#3 is Elon saying that he won't respond to blackmail, not to the concerns of advertisers.

Because he's labelled the concerns of advertisers as "blackmail." If an advertiser says that they can't afford the brand hit of the CEO of the platform posting agreement with anti-semitic tropes, that's not blackmail. If they pull their ads because the algorithms that you assured them would protect them against their logos being placed next to anti-semitic content don't work, that's not blackmail. Those are legitimate concerns by those advertisers. The advertisers, BTW, that stuck with Twitter even after they reduced the trust and safety personnel and allowed Hateful Conduct (and the users who post it) to remain on the site under "speech not reach." If you tell them to "f- off" when they get upset because you personally posted anti-semitic content and were shown that your programming safeguards don't work....well, that's not blackmail, either.

Again: TikTok teaches kids how to eat TidePods, steal Kias and is where all the From The River To The Sea People are hanging out. Why aren't its ads cancelled?

Because their CEO isn't personally posting his agreement with anti-semitic tropes, and because they haven't been shown to fail at protecting brands from having their ads shown next to toxic content that violates their ToS. It's not about whether the user popultion of these sites are good or bad, woke or not woke - it's about whether the platforms keep the brands safe from that stuff. And if your CEO can't behave like a CEO, and your software and Trust/Safety protocol doesn't work to protect your advertisers, you're going to lose your advertisers. If they do work, and the companies who advertise with you are kept safe, then they'll advertise with you. It's not hard. But Musk either doesn't know or doesn't care how the business of social media and managing advertiser concerns actually works, and he's trying really hard to convince people that it's their fault, not his.

Dope1: ...meanwhile, other platforms that they advertise on are far WORSE with respect to antisemitic and other bad content like child exploitation and yet these same outfits aren't cancelling their ads there. I can't respect that.

Says the guy who thinks Hillary should be in prison for having three incorrectly marked classified documents on her server...

...but who also thinks that the Orange Jesus guy, who waltzed away with 15 boxes of the nation's most guarded secret, top secret, classified, ORCON, NORFORN, TK, HCS-P and other national intelligence documents, including EIGHT DOCUMENTS SO SENSITIVE EVEN THEIR ACCESS CODES ARE SECRET, should be president again.

HILARIOUS!

So you want your brand advertised on a platform known for child exploitation, such as Instagram? Or how about the platform that's taught the world over how to steal Kia cars?

You're just making my point. These advertisers don't care about whether individual users on a platform are awful - they care about whether the platform itself is keeping their brands safe. Musk has shown he can't be trusted to keep their brands safe.

Hmm. Again, where are all the From The River To The Sea rally people posting their stuff?

Again, it's not about whether the users are good people or bad people. It's about whether the company that is selling the advertising space is showing that they can be trusted to treat brand safety as a priority of the company. They're not trying to use their ad buys to make the world a better place, or advance an agenda - they have business concerns about how X treats advertisers that they don't have about other platforms.

However, by leaving huffily like this they're playing to the woke virtue signaling crowd in an effort to score brownie points.

They're not. Once more, every advertiser that's leaving now is an advertiser that stated with Musk for the last year. They stayed with him when he stripped down the Trust and Safety teams, they stayed with him when he changed the ToS to keep Hateful Content on the site. They stayed with him, because (in part) they accepted his implicit assertion that they could keep their brands safe even with the changes he was implementing. They're leaving now not because they care about scoring brownie points (those companies all left in 2022), but because Musk burned them with his personal behavior and defective algorithms - and then told them to F- off.

"Elon is an antisemite" isn't "Twitter is the most antisemitic platform." It's about whether Elon personally chooses to believe anti-semitic tropes about Jewish Replacement Theory. Pick the least antisemitic platform that exists - if the CEO started personally posting anti-semitic beliefs, a lot of people would think that such CEO was anti-semitic, and it would be utterly irrelevant whether the platform users were anti-semitic.

But the issue is companies' ads being shown next to anti-semitic content. The above is a goal post shift to put the onus on Elon.

Okay, let's feature the company's owners. TikTok is a Chinse company and is connected to the CCP via ByteDance. They also have a history of censoring content the Chinese government isn't fond of.

So why advertise on a platform that follows anti-prettymucheverything values? Good for the goose and all that.

Because they're not much worse. A survey that shows whether individual users get more antisemitic after using various platforms doesn't say anything about whether those platforms are successful at protecting major brands from being placed next to toxic content.

Again, where are all the From The River To The Sea videos going?

Because he's labelled the concerns of advertisers as "blackmail." If an advertiser says that they can't afford the brand hit of the CEO of the platform posting agreement with anti-semitic tropes, that's not blackmail.

How many blackmailers openly say, "If you don't do what I want you to do, I'm going to <insert threat here>"? Most folks don't confess their crimes openly.

Because their CEO isn't personally posting his agreement with anti-semitic tropes, and because they haven't been shown to fail at protecting brands from having their ads shown next to toxic content that violates their ToS.

Interesting. So when TikTok was promoting content praising Bin Laden's letter on 9/11, that doesn't violate the ToS?

Says the guy who thinks Hillary should be in prison for having three incorrectly marked classified documents on her server...

...(other internet weirdo rant follows)

Wow, the L you took years ago on the Fool has really scarred your psyche, hasn't it?

Go water the Trump Chia Pet you keep in your bedroom. It'll all be okay.

So why advertise on a platform that follows anti-prettymucheverything values?

Because the companies don't care about woke. They don't care about whether the platform "follows" certain types of "values." They care about whether their brands will be harmed if they advertise on the site.

How many blackmailers openly say, "If you don't do what I want you to do, I'm going to <insert threat here>"? Most folks don't confess their crimes openly.

Which doesn't mean that every time someone makes a decision not to do business with a company blackmail.

Musk has done things that make his business less attractive for advertisers. If you do something that makes your company less attractive to your customers, some of your customers will leave. They're not blackmailing you when they decide to take their business elsewhere.

So when TikTok was promoting content praising Bin Laden's letter on 9/11, that doesn't violate the ToS?<//i>

Don't know - but for most companies, as long as their brands weren't associated with that content, they won't care. Because - again - this isn't a values thing for them, but a brand protection issue.

"boater: Indeed, highly classified material was also found on Weiners [sic] personal home computer.

me: Nope, nothing marked classified."

"Says the guy who thinks Hillary should be in prison for having three incorrectly marked classified documents on her server..."

You clearly cannot make up your mind about this.

sano: "I have to wonder which right wing pundit chose the words that are being regurgitated all over the right wing socialsphere; they (media matters) plotted! they executed! So eeeevil.
Sounds so nefarious! So diabolical! So insidious."

"If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.
Power is tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing." ~George Orwell, 1984

Newspeak, is specifically designed to control the thought process via a system of brutal simplifications that prevent complex thought.

"boater: Indeed, highly classified material was also found on Weiners [sic] personal home computer.

me: Nope, nothing marked classified."

"Says the guy who thinks Hillary should be in prison for having three incorrectly marked classified documents on her server..."

You clearly cannot make up your mind about this.

Let me make it clearer: "Says the guy who thinks Hillary should be in prison for having three documents on her server that had been incorrectly marked as classified when, in fact, they were not classified."

Now talk to me about Trump.

"Now talk to me about Trump."

No, I would rather stay on topic. So n fact you were mistaken and mislead lots of your fellow travelers when you catagericaly stated that there were ...no.. marked classified documents on her computer when in fact you seem to have known better.

Newspeak, is specifically designed to control the thought process via a system of brutal simplifications that prevent complex thought.

And the erstwhile Republican Party has embraced this concept wholeheartedly.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.