Twitter

[LennStar]

Media Matters created a new account that followed far right accounts and corporate accounts. They then generated 13 to 15 times the number of advertisements that a normal Twitter user would see.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24172816-x-v-media-matters-complaint

They engineered it to happen and pretended that it happened regularly. They acted in bad faith.

If this is true, doesn't that mean 1 out of every 13 to 15 Twitter users would see the same ads that Media Matters did? So, like, 6 to 8% of all Twitter users, on average?

So, like, 6 to 8% of all Twitter users that follow those accounts. And of course you can't judge from one case on the average.

But yes, 15 times more ads than normal is not exactly a high hurdle to jump with millions of users. Though I wonder how that is possible, that would mean 5 ads per real tweet of one of these accounts.

[Villanelle]

Even if it were true that ads together with Nazi content were only shown to one single account out of 500 million (which is just Musk's assertion, and how much stock should anyone put in those at this point?), that doesn't make it defamatory for Media Matters to report on it.

There's no "OK, technically what you said is true, but you shouldn't be allowed to say it like that" condition to First Amendment law. A self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist" should know that.

Good journalism should be repeatable. Media matters got lucky and made it look like it was a common occurrence. This would be like changing your entire financial strategy because a friend won a jackpot at a slot machine.

So until somebody can repeat what media matters did, you might as well disregard it as a freak occurrence.

media Matters went that route bc they wanted to hit Elon where it hurt for him, which is money, in this case as revenue. One thing people agree on,is that extreme views are amplified on x or twitter. In particular far right views. So the overall composition has changed, the level of discourse has decreased, and twitter has admitted it's algorithm favors far right content. In addition sometimes Elon makes personal tweaks to what is showcased or not. He has special privileges in amplifies and pushing his tweets regardless of how one sets their preferences or swipe history. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2025334119

I understand why Media Matters did what they did. The issue is that it was unethical.

I don't understand this comment.  As I understand it, Musk said X could not happen. (I typed that with no pun about Twitter/X intended, I swear!  Didn't occur to me until I typed the period at the end.) Media Matters proved that X could, in fact, happen, and they reported that.  Where's the lack of ethics?  (Or my lack of understanding about what happened, if I have the facts wrong.)  If I say Y is impossible, and someone proves that one in a billion times, it will happen, they are wrong about the impossibility, even if it is still extremely improbably Y will occur.

Media Matters created a new account that followed far right accounts and corporate accounts. They then generated 13 to 15 times the number of advertisements that a normal Twitter user would see.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24172816-x-v-media-matters-complaint

They engineered it to happen and pretended that it happened regularly. They acted in bad faith.

And no, I'm not a Musk fanboy. I understand that there is always more to the story.

I still don't understand.  Maybe I'm incorrect about the facts, but here's what I understand them to be.  Musk said X could never happen.  MM proved that it could, and did.  Not that it could and did often, but that it did.  Which runs contrary to "impossible/never". 

How did they pretend it happens regularly?  (I will say, yet again, that I may well be missing some facts here. I'm genuinely coming from a place of curiosity as I don't see that in what I know of the story, and what a quick google turned up.)

So I'm not seeing deception or a lack of ethics.  You say A will never happen.  I show you that it did happen at least once.  That means you were wrong.

"An meteor/meteorite could never can never and would never hit earth."  "Um, here's all sorts of proof that it happened. It has happened. Therefore, you are wrong."  "Well, you are being unethical by saying that, because it's clearly very rare."  Huh? 

[Phenix]

I can't speak for Musk, but if I were in his shoes and my people are telling me the odds are ridiculously low that an event would happen for 99.9% of users, I would feel safe saying that it won't happen. For example, the odds of me getting a hole-in-one are astronomically small since I only play golf 4 or 5 times a year. I would feel safe saying that I will never be celebrating a hole-in-one. But if all of the sudden, I'm dead set on getting the result that is said will never happen, I might start going to a par 3 course 3 times a week. Now instead of seeing maybe 20 par 3s per year, I'm seeing 27 every week.

Media Matters created a situation that was so far removed from reality, that I don't see it as a gotcha. I don't use Twitter, nor follow anything that Musk has his hands in, but this seems like such a petty scenario from my perspective.

[Metalcat]

I can't speak for Musk, but if I were in his shoes and my people are telling me the odds are ridiculously low that an event would happen for 99.9% of users, I would feel safe saying that it won't happen. For example, the odds of me getting a hole-in-one are astronomically small since I only play golf 4 or 5 times a year. I would feel safe saying that I will never be celebrating a hole-in-one. But if all of the sudden, I'm dead set on getting the result that is said will never happen, I might start going to a par 3 course 3 times a week. Now instead of seeing maybe 20 par 3s per year, I'm seeing 27 every week.

Media Matters created a situation that was so far removed from reality, that I don't see it as a gotcha. I don't use Twitter, nor follow anything that Musk has his hands in, but this seems like such a petty scenario from my perspective.

I also personally don't see much of the world reacting as if it is a "gotcha," other than maybe folks who already hate Musk.

[Taran Wanderer]

The people who insure hole-in-one contests (or half-court basketball shot contest, or kick a field goal contest) know the difference between odds that are very, very low and odds that are zero. If something is not an absolute, don’t talk in absolutes.

[techwiz]

The people who insure hole-in-one contests (or half-court basketball shot contest, or kick a field goal contest) know the difference between odds that are very, very low and odds that are zero. If something is not an absolute, don’t talk in absolutes.

[LennStar]

I can't speak for Musk, but if I were in his shoes and my people are telling me the odds are ridiculously low that an event would happen for 99.9% of users, I would feel safe saying that it won't happen. For example, the odds of me getting a hole-in-one are astronomically small since I only play golf 4 or 5 times a year. I would feel safe saying that I will never be celebrating a hole-in-one. But if all of the sudden, I'm dead set on getting the result that is said will never happen, I might start going to a par 3 course 3 times a week. Now instead of seeing maybe 20 par 3s per year, I'm seeing 27 every week.

Media Matters created a situation that was so far removed from reality, that I don't see it as a gotcha. I don't use Twitter, nor follow anything that Musk has his hands in, but this seems like such a petty scenario from my perspective.

I also personally don't see much of the world reacting as if it is a "gotcha," other than maybe folks who already hate Musk.

Well, I for my part don't hate Musk, though I dislike him a bit more every week (not sure if he always was such a conspiracy nut with xenophobic tendencies or if Twitter made him into one). But Media Matters matters not. I didn't crop up in my Twitter at all - though I use Tweetdeck, so I only see personally selected tweets (and their retweets). And of course half of them are German.

The people who insure hole-in-one contests (or half-court basketball shot contest, or kick a field goal contest) know the difference between odds that are very, very low and odds that are zero. If something is not an absolute, don’t talk in absolutes.

In that case half of the murderers currently in prison would be free, because even to sentence someone to death you only need to be sure "beyond reasonable doubt".

There is a nice test from a law professer that 1st year students get asked:
A woman was murdered at 11pm at a certain spot in the city.
Here is a DNA test that is 99,999% correct. The test identified this man positivly. He was 100% identified just 2 streets away from where the murder happened, at the appropriate time.
Would you convict him?

The majority(!) of law students said yes.
Even though there are 5 other people in the city the test would positivly identify, and as someone living 3 streets away from the murder, it is not unusual to see him in a bar 2 streets away.

The only absolute is uncertainty.

[Metalcat]

The people who insure hole-in-one contests (or half-court basketball shot contest, or kick a field goal contest) know the difference between odds that are very, very low and odds that are zero. If something is not an absolute, don’t talk in absolutes.

0.1% of thousands of uses of Twitter by hundreds of millions of people is also definitely not 0 instances.

I have about a 1/1500 debilitating genetic condition. 0.06% doesn't sound like much incidence until it's something you really care about.

I'm waiting to find out about an extremely rare cancer, and 4 in 1M odds just doesn't sound reassuring right now.

For massive populations, it doesn't take much probability to equal a hell of a lot of occurences. 

Half a billion people shooting for a hole in one multiple times a day, every single day, one would definitely expect it to happen.

ETA: if people want to say this low probability means it's not important, then fine. But don't say it's not possible. It's that simple.

This is why almost every single person in a position of authority over anything learns to hedge their language.

[LennStar]

Half a billion people shooting for a hole in one multiple times a day, every single day, one would definitely expect it to happen.

Or someone winning the lottery jackpot even though the chances are 1 in 45 million (for the big German one that falls every few weeks on average)

[Villanelle]

And again, MM did say this happens all the time or frequently.  They just said that yes, it has happened at least once, because it happens to us.

There's nothing misleading about it.  If someone said that no one could ever hit a hole in one, they'd be wrong.  Objectively.  Very wrong, and demonstrably so.  Why would someone posting video of a real human getting a real hole-in-one be "unethical" or misleading in that case? 

[Travis]

Well, I for my part don't hate Musk, though I dislike him a bit more every week (not sure if he always was such a conspiracy nut with xenophobic tendencies or if Twitter made him into one).

Can't say if he's always been one, but Twitter is a feedback loop for a lot of people, and owning it outright gave him the keys to the castle. He's found people who agree with his viewpoints, makes his own commentary, and shares it with the world to circle back around and start again. And apparently he loses his mind when he thinks not enough people are paying attention to those opinions.

[Phenix]

And again, MM did say this happens all the time or frequently.  They just said that yes, it has happened at least once, because it happens to us.

There's nothing misleading about it.  If someone said that no one could ever hit a hole in one, they'd be wrong.  Objectively.  Very wrong, and demonstrably so.  Why would someone posting video of a real human getting a real hole-in-one be "unethical" or misleading in that case?

But it didn't happen to them. It happend to a highly unrealistic scenario created just to prove something. It's like Elizabeth Warren releasing DNA tests showing she had Native Americans in her ancestry 10 generations back. It's all just stupid and doesn't prove anything except the pettiness of humans.

[Villanelle]

And again, MM did say this happens all the time or frequently.  They just said that yes, it has happened at least once, because it happens to us.

There's nothing misleading about it.  If someone said that no one could ever hit a hole in one, they'd be wrong.  Objectively.  Very wrong, and demonstrably so.  Why would someone posting video of a real human getting a real hole-in-one be "unethical" or misleading in that case?

But it didn't happen to them. It happend to a highly unrealistic scenario created just to prove something. It's like Elizabeth Warren releasing DNA tests showing she had Native Americans in her ancestry 10 generations back. It's all just stupid and doesn't prove anything except the pettiness of humans.

And the fact that what Musk said couldn't happen could, in fact, happen. 

I can certainly see how someone would say that what MM reported on was mostly meaningless.  But unethical?  Nah. 

[FireLane]

And to repeat the point, because some people are still overlooking it: we don't know how many Twitter users were being shown the Nazi ads.

Musk says it was an extremely small number verging on zero, but that's not proven fact. It's just his assertion. He has a financial incentive to say that whether it's true or not, and even his defenders, I think, would admit he's not the most truthful person alive.

[Metalcat]

And to repeat the point, because some people are still overlooking it: we don't know how many Twitter users were being shown the Nazi ads.

Musk says it was an extremely small number verging on zero, but that's not proven fact. It's just his assertion. He has a financial incentive to say that whether it's true or not, and even his defenders, I think, would admit he's not the most truthful person alive.

Musk says a lot of things...that's his main problem these days.

[sonofsven]

And to repeat the point, because some people are still overlooking it: we don't know how many Twitter users were being shown the Nazi ads.

Musk says it was an extremely small number verging on zero, but that's not proven fact. It's just his assertion. He has a financial incentive to say that whether it's true or not, and even his defenders, I think, would admit he's not the most truthful person alive.

I haven't followed this issue very closely (because Musk) and I don't use Twitter/X, so maybe this is a dumb question, but why are there any fucking nazi ads in the first place?!

[Travis]

And to repeat the point, because some people are still overlooking it: we don't know how many Twitter users were being shown the Nazi ads.

Musk says it was an extremely small number verging on zero, but that's not proven fact. It's just his assertion. He has a financial incentive to say that whether it's true or not, and even his defenders, I think, would admit he's not the most truthful person alive.

I haven't followed this issue very closely (because Musk) and I don't use Twitter/X, so maybe this is a dumb question, but why are there any fucking nazi ads in the first place?!

Musk opened the gates for far-right ads and personalities because he felt it was far-left biased when he bought it, and echoes far-right ideology every day while calling himself a "free speech centrist."

[NorCal]

And to repeat the point, because some people are still overlooking it: we don't know how many Twitter users were being shown the Nazi ads.

Musk says it was an extremely small number verging on zero, but that's not proven fact. It's just his assertion. He has a financial incentive to say that whether it's true or not, and even his defenders, I think, would admit he's not the most truthful person alive.

I haven't followed this issue very closely (because Musk) and I don't use Twitter/X, so maybe this is a dumb question, but why are there any fucking nazi ads in the first place?!

Musk opened the gates for far-right ads and personalities because he felt it was far-left biased when he bought it, and echoes far-right ideology every day while calling himself a "free speech centrist."

I think the issue was actually that nazi / hate speech type Twitter accounts (but I repeat myself) were being shown alongside advertisements for legitimate and respectable companies. 

[dang1]

in a neighborhood facebook group, a parent of the student at a local high school today posted of a big brawl in the campus. Aside from that post in that close fb group, the only other site that yielded mention of it in a search is X. not even on tiktok. The high school confirmed it hours later. X is still one of my latest news source.

[FireLane]

While we're on the topic of Nazis, here's a new story for the day:

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-x-blocked-journalists-researchers-neo-nazi-cartoonist/
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/stonetoss-doxxing

An antifascist group uncovered the identity of Stonetoss, a Nazi/racist/antisemitic cartoonist from Texas. Elon Musk is protecting him by suspending accounts and deleting any tweets that mention his real name:

This policy change could possibly be in response to a post last month from Musk when he wrote, “Any doxxing, which includes revealing real names, will result in account suspension.” Still, in an interview with Don Lemon released on Monday, Musk said that moderation of hate speech is akin to “censorship.”

...Caraballo and others have pointed to accounts like Libs of TikTok and far-right troll Andy Ngo, both of which have shared private information about trans people but have not had their accounts suspended. Musk has also engaged with posts that doxed individuals on X, with seemingly no recourse for those accounts.

[Michael in ABQ]

I joined Twitter about 6 months ago because there's a thriving ecommerce and small business community on there. Those are pretty much the people I followed and interacted with and that's basically what I see in my feed. I only view it desktop, not mobile, so I basically never get shown ads of any kind. I've never seen any posts by neo-Nazis since I specifically don't follow people who are overtly political (right or left). The only issue is that I get a new follower every day or two that is obviously a bot since they have zero posts, a profile picture of an attractive woman and follow 1,000 other accounts with no followers of their own. It's a minor annoyance at most and I just go through and remove them every week or two as I have no desire to let my followers be inflated by a bunch of bots.

I do also follow some open-source intelligence accounts that post updates about the war in Ukraine and other geopolitical events. If I go into any of those threads, I'll definitely see comments on both sides since it's a pretty heated issue of life and death. Especially if it's anything about the various conflicts in the Middle East (Israel, Gaza, Yemen, Syria, Iran, etc.). But that's to be expected on a platform that allows a level of free speech.

[LennStar]

As long as you only get the cl*ck me, f*ck me bots, that is not a problem. Once you catch the Russian propanga bots though...
a few days ago I answered a post about Ukraine and got 7 of them how stupid it is to send weapons to Ukraine and that we need peace in Europe.


But no ads on Desktop? You mean in browser? Strange. That version is flooded! Main reason why I use tweetdeck. That and that, as you said, if you only follow sensible people you don't get that right wing hate wave (though I do follow a few of those accounts for... scientific reasons.)

[maizefolk]

My sense is adblockers have a lot more freedom/scope on desktop/laptop web browsers than on mobile phone browsers (or worse yet mobile phone apps).

I just opened twitter, switched over the the "recommended" tab and scrolled for about a minute continuously without seeing a single ad.

[Michael in ABQ]

As long as you only get the cl*ck me, f*ck me bots, that is not a problem. Once you catch the Russian propanga bots though...
a few days ago I answered a post about Ukraine and got 7 of them how stupid it is to send weapons to Ukraine and that we need peace in Europe.


But no ads on Desktop? You mean in browser? Strange. That version is flooded! Main reason why I use tweetdeck. That and that, as you said, if you only follow sensible people you don't get that right wing hate wave (though I do follow a few of those accounts for... scientific reasons.)

I do have uBlock Origin installed on my browser (Chrome) so perhaps that's it. Most of the time I use Facebook I also don't see ads. Could be that Meta has just identified me as a poor prospect to target with ads as I never click on them except to hide/report them if they get annoying or inappropriate.