- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: X sues Media Matters after report about ads next to antisemitic content
Posted on 11/22/23 at 7:32 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 11/22/23 at 7:32 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Your understanding of the law is lower than the juniors I used to teach about commercial law in their undergrad programs.
Are you saying I was wrong about his rights under the Twitter purchase contract? Or anything I posted on the matter?
1
Posted on 11/22/23 at 7:33 pm to cwill
I’m saying you’re making a fool of yourself in this thread and your legal acumen is pathetic.
Posted on 11/22/23 at 7:34 pm to RedStickFox
Truth is always a defense to a defamation suit. So, we’ll see.
Posted on 11/22/23 at 7:34 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Without an Answer? Hahahahahah. You have no clue the standard for MSJ.
I asked for a summary judgement type analysis. Per usual you’re dishonest and hide behind phony bullshite. You don’t think there are any 1A implications here?
Posted on 11/22/23 at 7:37 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I’m saying you’re making a fool of yourself in this thread and your legal acumen is pathetic.
No you quoted my comments on the Twitter purchase contract. Was I wrong in that legal analysis or were you wrong? The record exists.
As for this thread, I really haven’t provided an opinion. I’m trying to get one from the guy that tries to validate his opinions with “I’m a lawyer!”
This post was edited on 11/22/23 at 7:38 pm
Posted on 11/22/23 at 7:58 pm to cwill
quote:
asked for a summary judgement type analysis.
A summary judgment analysis requires two things. That there are no dispute to material facts and that judgment is entitled by law. Without an Answer, how the frick would anyone be able to make a summary judgement analysis. You stupid idiot. How many times do I have to tell you, you don’t know what you don’t know.
Posted on 11/22/23 at 7:58 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:A typical user is one who does not constitute 100% of the ad views in a feed.
Question: What is a typical user?
Hope this helps.
Posted on 11/22/23 at 7:59 pm to cwill
quote:
You don’t think there are any 1A implications here?
Of course there are. Which, if what is in the petition is true, will be overcome. Which is why we need an Answer. Jesus Christ, I’m so tired of handholding you through basic procedure.
Posted on 11/22/23 at 7:59 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:"1000s of them"
Regardless though, typical users are providing evidence of the contrary in real time
Posted on 11/22/23 at 8:24 pm to BBONDS25
I think it’s a very novel question of whether you can knowingly manipulate an algorithm and have that be an actionable tort.
Taking the complaint as true, X said MM manipulated the algorithm to spit out a desired outcome and then (truthfully?) reported on that outcome.
How is that tortious interference?
Taking the complaint as true, X said MM manipulated the algorithm to spit out a desired outcome and then (truthfully?) reported on that outcome.
How is that tortious interference?
Posted on 11/22/23 at 10:08 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
How is that tortious interference?
Allegedly they manipulated the algorithm for the sole purpose of being able to write an article about the “hate speech” on X and advertisers being associated with it. It was completely contrived, and then MM pressured advertisers to stop advertising because of it. If true, that is pretty strong evidence of tortious interference.
Again, I am looking forward the the Answer and to the data that X has to support their claims.
This post was edited on 11/22/23 at 10:10 pm
Posted on 11/23/23 at 4:56 am to boosiebadazz
quote:That really is not the question; at least not the complete question.
I think it’s a very novel question of whether you can knowingly manipulate an algorithm and have that be an actionable tort.
The question is whether you can knowingly manipulate an algorithm to create an exceedingly rare event .... then go public with the contrived result while falsely insinuating that result's commonness or likelihood in normal platform use .... then carry that insinuation forward to an advertizer in an effort to have them withdraw funding from the platform .... then, if the advertizer resists, threaten to equate, sully, and smear them with the content their ad appeared with (which only one viewer, yourself, ever actually saw).
Posted on 11/23/23 at 11:22 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Is there a link to this happening or X alleging MM did this? I hadn't heard this part.
then, if the advertizer resists, threaten to equate, sully, and smear them with the content their ad appeared with
Posted on 11/23/23 at 11:27 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
X said MM manipulated the algorithm to spit out a desired outcome and then (truthfully?) reported on that outcome.
Can you truthfully report an outcome while withholding your own manipulations in manufacturing that outcome?
Posted on 11/23/23 at 11:58 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The question is whether you can knowingly manipulate an algorithm to create an exceedingly rare event .... then go public with the contrived result while falsely insinuating that result's commonness or likelihood in normal platform use .... then carry that insinuation forward to an advertizer in an effort to have them withdraw funding from the platform ....
Helluva assumption. Did you write the algorithm?
quote:
then, if the advertizer resists, threaten to equate, sully, and smear them with the content their ad appeared with (which only one viewer, yourself, ever actually saw).
What do damages to an ad purchasing company have to do with X? Don't they have their own lawyers?
Bolded: I'm amazed by the amount of inside information you're privy to. Tell us more.
Posted on 11/23/23 at 12:06 pm to SlimTigerSlap
This reminds me of a Russian dossier kind of situation.
Posted on 11/23/23 at 12:06 pm to shinerfan
I think the First Amendment says you can.
Posted on 11/23/23 at 12:08 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
Helluva assumption. Did you write the algorithm?
That’s the allegation made by X, who did write the algorithm. Holy shite, how are you so dumb?
quote:
What do damages to an ad purchasing company have to do with X? Don't they have their own lawyers?
You idiot. The damages are the advertisers leaving X
quote:
Bolded: I'm amazed by the amount of inside information you're privy to. Tell us more.
Read the Petition. It’s public record. Does it hurt being you? My Lord your ignorance knows no bounds.
Posted on 11/23/23 at 12:10 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
think the First Amendment says you can.
Not if your intent is to interfere with a contract. You know that. Don’t let your politics disregard your legal knowledge.
Posted on 11/23/23 at 12:12 pm to BBONDS25
You're extraordinarily stupid.
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News