Elon Musk and the ADL

[Anonymous]

Whenever an article says:

appearing to contain antisemitic language

I dismiss it. What does that even mean? I’m a Jew and have not noticed it, either before Musk or after Musk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elon is simply trying to blame others for his own incompetence.

Did you build the rockets?

This is the only retort the fanbois have.

Did you create a leading EV company?

Did you save free speech?

You are a scared little person.

He didn’t do any of those things. Stop being such a butt-kisser.

I am against hate speech. I strongly support free speech. Perhaps, if the original twitter people had allowed free speech and not determined that anything political opponents said was "hate speech" we would be better off.

Remember, they banned NYPost for the laptop. That was not the only weight they threw into another scale.

ADL has gone after a Jewish orthodox woman for posting things she gathered from the internet that exposed things they did not like. All she does is repost things that are already out there. But, the things she posts are alarming to people who are clueless as to what some are doing with their kids. Ironic that she gets blamed for things the left is doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ADL is an advocacy group and does not speak for all Jews.

Calling ADL to account is not anti semitism. I support Elon.

Jew here. Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no case for Musk against ADL. They came by their opinion about hate speech honestly.

1. A study by ADL and other groups found a dramatic rise in hate speech following his takeover. Such a study demonstrates that they came to an honest opinion:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/technology/twitter-hate-speech.html

2. Twitter's own head of Safety admitted it was true:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2022/11/01/twitter-safety-head-acknowledges-surge-in-hateful-conduct-amid-reports-of-company-limiting-access-to-moderation-tools/?sh=7597045f3bfc

3. An independent study found anti-semitic tweets doubled after Musk took over.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/20/antisemitic-tweets-soared-twitter-after-musk-took-over-study-finds/

The Forbes article stated there was an increase in nasty tweets, not specifically antisemetic. How do you know they weren’t leftist activists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elon is all over the place. He’s so bipolar.

He’s claiming the ADL is responsible for the fall in advertising on Twitter:

And now the ADL is allegedly a leftist organization:

Musk is unhinged.

Looked up the CO lawsuit. Wow:

The jury awarded the Quigleys damages, mostly punitive, of $10.5 million — a figure that astonished defendants and plaintiffs alike in the drawn-out and complex case.

The jury found that several public statements made in 1994 by Rosenthal on behalf of the ADL defamed the Quigleys and resulted in actual and punitive damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elon is simply trying to blame others for his own incompetence.

Always.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whenever an article says:

appearing to contain antisemitic language

I dismiss it. What does that even mean? I’m a Jew and have not noticed it, either before Musk or after Musk

This is a really weird way to consume news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elon is simply trying to blame others for his own incompetence.

Did you build the rockets?

This is the only retort the fanbois have.

Did you create a leading EV company?

Did you save free speech?

You are a scared little person.

He didn’t do any of those things. Stop being such a butt-kisser.

I am against hate speech. I strongly support free speech. Perhaps, if the original twitter people had allowed free speech and not determined that anything political opponents said was "hate speech" we would be better off.

Remember, they banned NYPost for the laptop. That was not the only weight they threw into another scale.

ADL has gone after a Jewish orthodox woman for posting things she gathered from the internet that exposed things they did not like. All she does is repost things that are already out there. But, the things she posts are alarming to people who are clueless as to what some are doing with their kids. Ironic that she gets blamed for things the left is doing.

After she posts those things, the places where they happen get bomb threats for days afterwards. That is her problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ADL is an advocacy group and does not speak for all Jews.

Calling ADL to account is not anti semitism. I support Elon.

You think the ADL is the reason Twitter has lost its value??

You think there hasn’t been an increase in antisemitic tweeters and tweets?

Sounds like tortuous interference, but I'm not sure why he isn't going after the ADL for that rather than defamation.

He's not actually "going after". He's just talking more gibberish. If he did take it to court, it would hold up about as well as his last court battle, where he was forced to buy Twitter.

While defamation is extremely hard for a public figure to prove, tortious interference is usually an easily established matter of record. In the case of the ADL’s interference with X’s advertising contracts, all of the elements are observably there and could be easily proven using the communications between the ADL and the advertisers:

The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
The contractual relationship is breached.
Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.

Now do the analysis of whether or not the interference was protected speech. For bonus points, use 9th circuit case law.

[Anonymous]

Nothing says "I'm not an antisemite" like blaming the ADL for your bad business practices.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elon is simply trying to blame others for his own incompetence.

Did you build the rockets?

This is the only retort the fanbois have.

Did you create a leading EV company?

Did you save free speech?

You are a scared little person.

He didn’t do any of those things. Stop being such a butt-kisser.

I am against hate speech. I strongly support free speech. Perhaps, if the original twitter people had allowed free speech and not determined that anything political opponents said was "hate speech" we would be better off.

Remember, they banned NYPost for the laptop. That was not the only weight they threw into another scale.

ADL has gone after a Jewish orthodox woman for posting things she gathered from the internet that exposed things they did not like. All she does is repost things that are already out there. But, the things she posts are alarming to people who are clueless as to what some are doing with their kids. Ironic that she gets blamed for things the left is doing.

If you approvingly post hateful things that others have said, you are also hateful. The ADL correctly identified LibsofTiktok as the hater she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ADL is an advocacy group and does not speak for all Jews.

Calling ADL to account is not anti semitism. I support Elon.

You think the ADL is the reason Twitter has lost its value??

You think there hasn’t been an increase in antisemitic tweeters and tweets?

Sounds like tortuous interference, but I'm not sure why he isn't going after the ADL for that rather than defamation.

He's not actually "going after". He's just talking more gibberish. If he did take it to court, it would hold up about as well as his last court battle, where he was forced to buy Twitter.

While defamation is extremely hard for a public figure to prove, tortious interference is usually an easily established matter of record. In the case of the ADL’s interference with X’s advertising contracts, all of the elements are observably there and could be easily proven using the communications between the ADL and the advertisers:

The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
The contractual relationship is breached.
Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.

Now do the analysis of whether or not the interference was protected speech. For bonus points, use 9th circuit case law.

Different fact pattern.

The ADL literally raises money on the basis of its successful interference in contracts between third parties to which it has no relation, and its entire modus operandi is based on tortious interference for the purposes of harming the party it is targeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Remember, they banned NYPost for the laptop. That was not the only weight they threw into another scale.

The link from Twitter to the NY Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop was banned for 2 days, under Twitter's regulations against re-distributing hacked material. Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Even for those two days, the NY Post website was never banned.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/technology/twitter-new-york-post.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ADL is an advocacy group and does not speak for all Jews.

Calling ADL to account is not anti semitism. I support Elon.

You think the ADL is the reason Twitter has lost its value??

You think there hasn’t been an increase in antisemitic tweeters and tweets?

Sounds like tortuous interference, but I'm not sure why he isn't going after the ADL for that rather than defamation.

He's not actually "going after". He's just talking more gibberish. If he did take it to court, it would hold up about as well as his last court battle, where he was forced to buy Twitter.

While defamation is extremely hard for a public figure to prove, tortious interference is usually an easily established matter of record. In the case of the ADL’s interference with X’s advertising contracts, all of the elements are observably there and could be easily proven using the communications between the ADL and the advertisers:

The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
The contractual relationship is breached.
Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.

Now do the analysis of whether or not the interference was protected speech. For bonus points, use 9th circuit case law.

Different fact pattern.

The ADL literally raises money on the basis of its successful interference in contracts between third parties to which it has no relation, and its entire modus operandi is based on tortious interference for the purposes of harming the party it is targeting.

OK. Now do your analysis in light of the First Amendment defense that the ADL will raise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Remember, they banned NYPost for the laptop. That was not the only weight they threw into another scale.

The link from Twitter to the NY Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop was banned for 2 days, under Twitter's regulations against re-distributing hacked material. Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Even for those two days, the NY Post website was never banned.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/technology/twitter-new-york-post.html

Oh, there you go with your pesky facts again!
MAGA don't like facts!