• communication [they]@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I agree with your point in general, but I have a hard time applying it here. Unless the lawsuit alleges that MM hacked into Twitter or doctored the screenshots, then the core claim of the MM report “Twitter served ad Y next to post Z” is not under dispute. If the claim is that refreshing a page is malicious, then I don’t think we need to wait to call the lawsuit malicious.

      • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, it’s splitting hairs. While the proximity probably didn’t help, I doubt the companies deciding to pull ads weren’t like “sure, we don’t mind hanging out in a nazi bar, just make sure not to seat us next to any nazis.” I mean, some probably were, but there has been increasingly large amounts of pressure on these people and within like 24 hours of each other Elon endorses replacement theory and the MM story drops that Elon is running ads for nazis. There are only so many times you can make a dumb excuse. For lots of us, that was a long time ago. Even the capitalists are realizing now at least that he’s bad for business.

      • communication [they]@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Okay, that’s a fair point. They left too many blanks for the reader to fill in, and some will assume the problem is more widespread than it is.

        When I put my Social Scientist hat on, I don’t think the methodology was totally unreasonable or obviously malicious, so X would have to strengthen their claims to convince me to wait for court. But you’re right, MM should have done better.