Elon Musk and the ADL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most hate speech is constitutionally protected. It’s also constitutionally protected speech to condemn hate speech. I’m no Elon stan but he is right in this case.

He's not.

Is the ADL is going after advertisers as he says?

We would have to see evidence. I don't think he has made that info public just saying x amount of advertising lost.

So what if they are? Right wingers are calling for boycotts of a hundred businesses. It’s legal. Asking companies to stop advertising on an offensive platform is legal. Everyone including you knows it’s all true. Elon is slobbering all over neo-Nazis for their approval.

The ADL's business model is basically an outrage machine, there is a difference between boycotting and tortuous interference

In California, these are the elements of negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, which the plaintiff must establish:

1) an economic relationship existed between the plaintiff and a third party which contained a reasonably probable future economic benefit or advantage to plaintiff;
2)the defendant knew of the existence of the relationship and was aware or should have been aware that if it did not act with due care its actions would interfere with this relationship and cause plaintiff to lose in whole or in part the probable future economic benefit or advantage of the relationship;
3)the defendant was negligent; and
such negligence caused damage to plaintiff in that the relationship was actually interfered with or disrupted and plaintiff lost in whole or in part the economic benefits or advantage reasonably expected from the relationship

It would have to come out in court if the ADL is contacting advertisers and directly pressuring them vs just saying Musk is antisemetic

Me thinks your references to tortious interference are tortuous.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, if you can't spell tortious you probably shouldn't be telling the rest of the world what it means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most hate speech is constitutionally protected. It’s also constitutionally protected speech to condemn hate speech. I’m no Elon stan but he is right in this case.

And ADL is free to criticize him for allowing it. And advertisers are free to shun X because he allows it. But Elon is not allowed to sue ADL or the advertisers, so the only one in the wrong here is Elon.

Elon can most certainly sue the ADL. The outcome is determined on what actions the ADL did and did not do regarding twitter.

This whole debate is so stupid. Next the ADL will decide to go after the history channel if they air footage of Nazis.

What actions did the ADL do regarding twitter that you think merit a lawsuit?

Musk claims ADL pressured advertisers not to advertise on twitter causing a 60% drop in advertising revenue.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/elon-musk-blames-adl-lost-revenue-says-anti-semitism-kind-rcna103292

Even if that’s true, it’s not illegal. Boycotts are legal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

There is a difference between

1) ADL telling its members/community to not to buy a product (boycott)

2) ADL calling up companys that they know have an existing/potential business contract with X/Twitter and telling them not to advertise with X/Twitter which leads to harm (Tortious interference)

3) ADL threatening a company to end an existing relationship with X/Twitter with legal action to which they have no prior involvement with either party (Tortious interference)

ADL can ask companies to stop advertising, there is absolutely nothing legally wrong with that. There is also nothing illegal about someone asking people to boycott a company.

I highly doubt Elon Musk will be able to prove that ADL extorted or otherwise threatened his advertisers in any illegal manner.
I also doubt he can prove that ADL was solely responsible for his massive losses in revenue at X.

#2 is not tortious interference. #3 is also not tortious interference so long as the legal action threatened is reasonably based.

[Anonymous]

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) Boycotts are legal. Persuading someone to join a boycott is legal.

Defaming Twitter would not be legal, but the evidence of a spike in anti-semitic tweets following Musk's takeover includes
(1) independent research
(2) the admission of Twitter's own head of Safety and Security, and
(3) research funded by several civil rights groups including ADL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) Boycotts are legal. Persuading someone to join a boycott is legal.

Defaming Twitter would not be legal, but the evidence of a spike in anti-semitic tweets following Musk's takeover includes
(1) independent research
(2) the admission of Twitter's own head of Safety and Security, and
(3) research funded by several civil rights groups including ADL

I don't accept the research at face value and think it is probably manipulated to defame Elon. I don't think it's likely that can be proven, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) Boycotts are legal. Persuading someone to join a boycott is legal.

Defaming Twitter would not be legal, but the evidence of a spike in anti-semitic tweets following Musk's takeover includes
(1) independent research
(2) the admission of Twitter's own head of Safety and Security, and
(3) research funded by several civil rights groups including ADL

I don't accept the research at face value and think it is probably manipulated to defame Elon. I don't think it's likely that can be proven, though.

So every single thing that anyone has noticed or studied about Twitter since his takeover is just to sh!t on Elon? You won’t admit that anything has actually gotten worse? Huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) Boycotts are legal. Persuading someone to join a boycott is legal.

Defaming Twitter would not be legal, but the evidence of a spike in anti-semitic tweets following Musk's takeover includes
(1) independent research
(2) the admission of Twitter's own head of Safety and Security, and
(3) research funded by several civil rights groups including ADL

I don't accept the research at face value and think it is probably manipulated to defame Elon. I don't think it's likely that can be proven, though.

So every single thing that anyone has noticed or studied about Twitter since his takeover is just to sh!t on Elon? You won’t admit that anything has actually gotten worse? Huh.

He has 75% fewer employees and it's running damn well.

What were those employees doing all day? Screwing off? When a company loses three quarters of its employees and it still runs well, what does that tell you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) Boycotts are legal. Persuading someone to join a boycott is legal.

Defaming Twitter would not be legal, but the evidence of a spike in anti-semitic tweets following Musk's takeover includes
(1) independent research
(2) the admission of Twitter's own head of Safety and Security, and
(3) research funded by several civil rights groups including ADL

I don't accept the research at face value and think it is probably manipulated to defame Elon. I don't think it's likely that can be proven, though.

So every single thing that anyone has noticed or studied about Twitter since his takeover is just to sh!t on Elon? You won’t admit that anything has actually gotten worse? Huh.

He has 75% fewer employees and it's running damn well.

What were those employees doing all day? Screwing off? When a company loses three quarters of its employees and it still runs well, what does that tell you?

If it’s doing so well what is Elon whining about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) Boycotts are legal. Persuading someone to join a boycott is legal.

Defaming Twitter would not be legal, but the evidence of a spike in anti-semitic tweets following Musk's takeover includes
(1) independent research
(2) the admission of Twitter's own head of Safety and Security, and
(3) research funded by several civil rights groups including ADL

I don't accept the research at face value and think it is probably manipulated to defame Elon. I don't think it's likely that can be proven, though.

So every single thing that anyone has noticed or studied about Twitter since his takeover is just to sh!t on Elon? You won’t admit that anything has actually gotten worse? Huh.

He has 75% fewer employees and it's running damn well.

What were those employees doing all day? Screwing off? When a company loses three quarters of its employees and it still runs well, what does that tell you?

If it’s doing so well what is Elon whining about?

+1 to the PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) Boycotts are legal. Persuading someone to join a boycott is legal.

Defaming Twitter would not be legal, but the evidence of a spike in anti-semitic tweets following Musk's takeover includes
(1) independent research
(2) the admission of Twitter's own head of Safety and Security, and
(3) research funded by several civil rights groups including ADL

I don't accept the research at face value and think it is probably manipulated to defame Elon. I don't think it's likely that can be proven, though.

So every single thing that anyone has noticed or studied about Twitter since his takeover is just to sh!t on Elon? You won’t admit that anything has actually gotten worse? Huh.

He has 75% fewer employees and it's running damn well.

What were those employees doing all day? Screwing off? When a company loses three quarters of its employees and it still runs well, what does that tell you?

Well the Nazis are running amok and there is the problem of outages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) Boycotts are legal. Persuading someone to join a boycott is legal.

Defaming Twitter would not be legal, but the evidence of a spike in anti-semitic tweets following Musk's takeover includes
(1) independent research
(2) the admission of Twitter's own head of Safety and Security, and
(3) research funded by several civil rights groups including ADL

I don't accept the research at face value and think it is probably manipulated to defame Elon. I don't think it's likely that can be proven, though.

So every single thing that anyone has noticed or studied about Twitter since his takeover is just to sh!t on Elon? You won’t admit that anything has actually gotten worse? Huh.

What I think is that I don't do data analysis of the 500M tweets per day and so my observations would be meaningless. I kind of doubt things are worse though. It's Twitter, so it already has a low bar.

[Anonymous]

Elon Musk is not an anti-Semite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elon Musk is not an anti-Semite.

The Nazis clearly think he is.

And moderation has basically disappeared from the site so if he is enabling a bunch of Nazis and then whining when the ADL points that out I think it’s almost besides the point to debate what his personal views are

(And I am not a big fan of the ADL btw)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elon Musk is not an anti-Semite.

The Nazis clearly think he is.

And moderation has basically disappeared from the site so if he is enabling a bunch of Nazis and then whining when the ADL points that out I think it’s almost besides the point to debate what his personal views are

(And I am not a big fan of the ADL btw)

You don’t value free speech, which I find odd.

I don’t know who these “nazis” are who think Elon is a “nazi” and I don’t credit their opinion about Elon any more than I would credit their opinion about Jews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elon Musk is not an anti-Semite.

The Nazis clearly think he is.

And moderation has basically disappeared from the site so if he is enabling a bunch of Nazis and then whining when the ADL points that out I think it’s almost besides the point to debate what his personal views are

(And I am not a big fan of the ADL btw)

You don’t value free speech, which I find odd.

I don’t know who these “nazis” are who think Elon is a “nazi” and I don’t credit their opinion about Elon any more than I would credit their opinion about Jews.

I believe the pp said the Nazis think Musk is an anti-semite. As for crediting their opinion, you think Nazis are bad at identifying anti-semites? That's kind of ridiculous.