A nonprofit organization that researches links between social media, hate and extremism has been threatened with a lawsuit by X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.
A nonprofit organization that researches links between social media, hate and extremism has been threatened with a lawsuit by X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.
This is clearly a SLAPP lawsuit. Since civil penalties and fines don’t matter to Musk it seems the only way to enforce good behavior is with criminal ones.
It’s not clearly a slapp lawsuit.
If you make a claim like this you need to be able to defend it, as if it’s false it is libel. By making these claims they’re trying to hurt twitter, so twitter have every right to hold them accountable for their actions.
Okay
But nothing that has been said here implies it’s libel. In fact it’s research.
Are we really going to say researchers should be subject to lawsuits every time they find something? Sure maybe you can argue the research didn’t do any due diligence, but that’s not being implied here.
I think it’s very safe to say it’s a slapp lawsuit.
Defending your company against claims that are specifically made to hurt the company isn’t a SLAPP lawsuit. If they did their research properly and ethically and have all their documentation of how it was done and why etc then they should have no problem defending themselves. If they don’t, however, and went in trying to find evidence for their pre-determined conclusion as many, many, companies do, then they’re going to have problems - and rightfully so.
At great legal expense and/or personal energy expended, relative to the billionaire who can sue on a whim. That’s the point, to make the next person who might consider releasing something critical of Musk think twice.
Free speech absolutism doesn’t look like one would assume. It doesn’t include criticism, evidently.
You’re basically just saying that any lawsuit where one person has more money than the other, especially if one of them is a billionaire, is a SLAPP suit. That’s absurd and wrong on so many levels.
This “research” was made to try and justify a conclusion they’d already decided on, not to see if said conclusion is actually true. Their entire “research” is based around 5 popular accounts essentially. You can’t just say “musk encourages hate speech and hate speech has tripled since he bought twitter!” and release a “research report” and expect to not be taken to court for your claim, especially when the research is so obviously biased and unscientifically done.
Odd how you automatically assume that the non-profit company is unethically trying to find evidence for a conclusion, but down in your other post you accept Musk’s articles wholeheartedly.
This is a waste of time.
I don’t accept musks articles wholeheartedly. Never said I did.
Did you look at the actual “research” findings they released? The entire thing is based on the “fact” that the term “groomer” is classified as “hate speech” - which it isn’t. If one person called an LGBTQ+ person, who was jailed for being a paedophile and had been grooming kids as their teacher for example, a groomer and then 10 other people jumped to the convicted paedophiles defence or agreed, this non-profit company took that as 11 counts of hate speech, by their own admission on page 1 of their results:
I shouldn’t have to tell you how clearly terrible this research is after you see that. Their conclusion is biased from the start because they have already made the conclusion that the term “groomer” is hate speech, and are then working backwards to try and make it seems like hate speech has grown at least 2x since musk took over based purely on the amount of discussion involving the word groomer, which isn’t even hate speech to begin with.
And that’s based entirely on whether or not you can read the word narrative, which does not mean the word groomer is the hate speech, but rather the narrative that LGBTQ+ people are trying to raise children for predatory purposes. That is the hate speech. That is the definition of groomer it means, and even then it means the narrative is the hate speech, not the specific word.
And the fact you posted that again after I already called you out on it says a lot about you.
And in case you didn’t understand, the thing you quoted said Groomer Narrative , which is about the conversation regarding grooming, not one specific word.
They didn’t go that deep though. They looked for any instances of a bunch of LGBT style terms and a bunch of terms to do with grooming.
Are you talking about your one liner post that just said something vague about “narrative”?
But again - they’re the ones that are deciding that the “narrative” around the term “groomer” is “hate speech”. They’re not the people that decide this. Their methodology also didn’t only count instances where people where using that narrative.
And anyway - grooming is bad. Calling someone that wants to teach 8 year olds about anal sex and condition them to be ok with grown men walking around them naked in female changing rooms is not ok, and well it kinda fits the definition of “grooming”. “Grooming” isn’t hate speech, nor is pointing out when it’s happening.