Elon Musk’s X, formerly known as Twitter, has initiated legal action, alleging defamation by a news organization regarding claims that major companies’ ads were displayed alongside antisemitic content. However, the lawsuit seems to inadvertently confirm the very accusations it deems defamatory.
Last Thursday, Media Matters published an article presenting screenshots displaying ads from IBM, Apple, Oracle, and others adjacent to offensive content, including explicit pro-Hitler material. In response, IBM and Apple withdrew their ads from X, exacerbating the challenges for a company already grappling with an advertiser exodus. Musk’s apparent endorsement of some antisemitic views added to the controversy.
Musk, angered by the article, vowed to file a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against Media Matters and those involved in what he deemed a “fraudulent attack” on his company. The lawsuit was indeed filed, but its content falls short of the promised impact. X alleges that Media Matters “manufactured” or “contrived” the images, asserting that the ads were not “found” but instead “created in secrecy.”
However, X’s legal team’s emphasis on the term “manufactured” appears to be a misdirection. CEO Linda Yaccarino contradicted this narrative, stating that “only 2 users saw Apple’s ad next to the content.” The lawsuit contends that the accounts producing extreme content were known but not demonetized until Media Matters highlighted them, explicitly acknowledging X’s awareness of their extremity.
In essence, there seems to be no inherent fabrication or manipulation in claiming that these ads were displayed alongside objectionable content, as they indisputably were. While Media Matters orchestrated the conditions for these ads to appear by using an older account without ad filtering and following both hateful and corporate accounts, the ads unequivocally appeared in proximity to offensive content.
The lawsuit emphasizes that these accounts were “known to produce extreme, fringe content,” yet X did not demonetize them until Media Matters brought attention to them. This discrepancy raises questions about X’s handling of known extremist content on its platform.
In summary, the legal action does not seem to disprove the actual occurrence of ads appearing alongside objectionable content. While certain conditions were orchestrated, the ads’ placement was not inherently fraudulent, and the lawsuit’s focus on the term “manufactured” appears to be a semantic diversion. Angelo Carusone, Media Matters’ leader, further underscored the issue by highlighting ads placed on a search for “killjews” on X shortly after Yaccarino’s confirmation.
