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.

  • AnonTwo@kbin.social
    1·
    1 year ago

    Defending your company against claims that are specifically made to hurt the company isn’t a SLAPP lawsuit.

    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.

    • Whirlybird
      1·
      1 year ago

      I don’t accept musks articles wholeheartedly. Never said I did.

      Odd how you automatically assume that the non-profit company is unethically trying to find evidence for a conclusion

      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:

      Note that this analysis captures the volume of discourse around the ‘groomer’ narrative, which includes tweets defending the LGBTQ+ community as well as those leveling the slurs.

      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.

      • AnonTwo@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        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.

        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.

        • Whirlybird
          1·
          1 year ago

          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.

          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.

          And the fact you posted that again after I already called you out on it says a lot about you.

          Are you talking about your one liner post that just said something vague about “narrative”?

          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.

          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.