FTA: “This week Media Matters for America posted a story that completely misrepresented the real experience on X, in another attempt to undermine freedom of speech and mislead advertisers,” a statement posted by Musk said.
“Above everything, including profit, X works to protect the public’s right to free speech. But for speech to be truly free, we must also have the freedom to see or hear things that some people may consider objectionable,” he added.
So, because “for speech to be truly free, we must also have the freedom to see or hear things that some people may consider objectionable”, he wants the courts to state there are things Media Matters for America cannot say because he considers them objectionable?
If that’s not enough to end this in court, there’s the fact that he doesn’t even attempts to counter the claim that they made, that corporate advertisements by IBM, Apple, Oracle and Comcast’s Xfinity were being placed alongside antisemitic content.
Once again, Musk finds out there are consequences to his actions. But, once again, he figures that those consequences don't apply to him. What a surprise there ...
I'm not sure he has ever advocated for free speech with no consequences. Surely, he sees this lawsuit as the consequences of Media Matters speech. Specifically, he maintains that Media Matters has significantly misrepresented advertised risk on X and it has materially harmed X's business. If some of the claims made by the X side are true, Media Matters has been disingenuous to the point of scummery. Of course, IANAL, so no idea how all of that shakes out in a legal context.
The gist of Musk's complaint seems to be extreme cherrypicking by Media Matters. In his words:
"Of the 5.5 billion ad impressions on X that day, less than 50 total ad impressions were served against all of the organic content featured in the Media Matters article. For one brand showcased in the article, one of its ads ran adjacent to a post 2 times and that ad was seen in that setting by only two users, one of which was the author of the Media Matters article."
“Above everything, including profit, X works to protect the public’s right to free speech. But for speech to be truly free, we must also have the freedom to see or hear things that some people may consider objectionable,” he added.
So, because “for speech to be truly free, we must also have the freedom to see or hear things that some people may consider objectionable”, he wants the courts to state there are things Media Matters for America cannot say because he considers them objectionable?
If that’s not enough to end this in court, there’s the fact that he doesn’t even attempts to counter the claim that they made, that corporate advertisements by IBM, Apple, Oracle and Comcast’s Xfinity were being placed alongside antisemitic content.