Elon Musk, Owner of X-Corp., Sued Media Matters for Defamation and Fraud.
Elon Musk's X-Corp., Sued Media Matters America for Defamation Monday November 20th, 2023. After the left-leaning non-profit released a report on ads X was running next to pro-Nazi and helped trigger an advertiser exodus.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, for the Northern District of Texas Fort Worth Division, alleged the organization's tactics were manipulative and deceptive.
X alleged that Media Matters America "exploited" the platform to have ads appear this way, which included "excessive scrolling" and curating its feed with "fringe" content.
"The overall effect on advertisers and users was to create the false, misleading perception that these types of pairings were common, widespread, and alarming," the lawsuit reads.
X-CEO Linda Yaccarino, who has received messages from marketing leaders pushing for her to resign, defended the company in a statement on Monday, November 20th, 2023. "If you know me, you know I'm committed to truth and fairness," she Posted on X.
"Here's the truth. Not a single authentic user on X saw IBM's, Comcast's, or Oracle's ads next to the content in Media Matters' article. Only two users saw Apple's ad next to the content, at least one of which was Media Matters. Data wins over manipulation or allegations. Don't be manipulated; stand with X.
Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said on Monday November 20th, 2023, that he is "opening an investigation into Media Matters America for potential fraudulent activity," noting Musk's accusation of the organization "manipulating data" on X.
The other side: "This is a frivolous lawsuit meant to bully X's critics into silence. Media Matters stands behind its reporting and looks forward to winning in court," Media Matters President Angelo Carusone said in a statement on Monday night.
Carusone said over the weekend in response to Musk's "threat" to sue, that's far from "the free speech advocate he claims to be, Musk is a "bully' who threatens meritless lawsuits in an attempt to silence reporting that he even confirmed is accurate."
This is the most important lawsuit of our generation, please pay attention. More reports to follow.
Censorship: I've been suspended from Reddit two times, permanent ban from Facebook/Instagram/Meta.
15.4 Censorship and Freedom of Speech
Censorship is the suppression or removal of writing, artistic work, etc. It is the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons. It can also be the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. It occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government and the rule of law.
To fully understand the issues of censorship and freedom of speech and how they apply to modern media, we must first explore the terms themselves. Censorship is defined as suppressing or removing anything deemed objectionable. A common, everyday example can be found on the radio or television, where potentially offensive words are “bleeped” out. More controversial is censorship at a political or religious level. If you’ve ever been banned from reading a book in school or watched a “clean” version of a movie on an airplane, you’ve experienced censorship.
Repressive Governments: Historically, repressive governments have often shut down or silenced media sources, legislation has prevented journalists from freely reporting the truth, and those who did speak out were imprisoned or killed. Self-Censorship: This is when individuals or organizations limit what they say for fear of repercussions. Social Media Shaming: This is a new form of censorship proliferating via technology and global connections.
General Censorship: This occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups.
After being flagged for unusual behavior on X/Twitter my outreach has been heavily restricted via X moderators. This action is clear to me considering my outreach of engagements when from averaging 50 - 100 engagements, to currently at most getting 10. Elon still allows certain amount of censoring to occur, due to his marketing push of "Verified Blue Checkmarks". I'm currently dealing with some legal issues; thus, I cannot afford to pay $150.00 plus dollars yearly for this blue checkmark. Just because someone preaches the 1st amendment, doesn't mean they completely support it either. Manipulation on all fronts, runs deep in this country. Status, outreach, and prestige will always be about money, or who can outspend their opponents long-term.
Amendment I
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Why is Big-Tech censoring?
Big Tech censorship refers to companies like Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, or Twitter deciding what piece of media you can see or interact with on the internet. They act as gatekeepers of the web, deciding which opinions you are allowed to share on burning issues and what contents are "safe enough" for you to consume. Lawmakers argue that the structural design of the attention economy has given rise to disinformation and its rapid spread online, which presents a serious political threat to democracies.
This appears to some Americans as a violation of our civil liberties and rights. Though from my own research, Big-Tech companies in the court of law claim/argue to be private companies, corporations, or entities. The other side of the argument is, at which point should these companies I.e., social media in general, become a utility and not a private entity. Shouldn't everyone be given the same opportunities, coverage, or attention?
My opinion doesn't matter, but the court of public opinion should have a stronger more organized place to discuss these issues in a civil manner, opposed to being suppressed, censured, or shadow banned. We're seeing more examples everyday of political commentators, journalists, going to jail/prison for their speech. This is a dangerous path we're embarking on, and I caution anyone choosing this "by all-means necessary" method. We should keep in mind what keeps our nation ideal is our ability to have opposing views; and discussions about said opposing views. I hold these ideals dear to my heart, considering I once fought for them, and would still give my life to uphold them.