Elon Musk and the ADL

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Just putting this out there: Blaming the Jews for your economic misfortunes is about the oldest trick in the book.

This will go about as well as his many claims about Twitter prior to his bid to buy it.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

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

Elon's own stupidity is what caused his advertisers to bail. He should try suing himself 😆

[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

I don't think that's enough. Even if ADL contacted them, so what? It would have to be shown that ADL directly threatened or otherwise extorted the advertisers and that leaving Twitter and canceling advertising contracts was a direct outcome of that contact with ADL. I suspect that's going to be far too high of a bar for Elon to meet.

[Anonymous]

The whole "Jews-are-the-real-antisemites" pretzel logic is completely breathtaking.

[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

This has already been decided. Boycotts are protected speech. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Musk can't keep his dumb mouth shut.

My Jewish MIL literally just canceled her Tesla order today. It was going to be her first EV. But she's been a financial supporter of the ADL for 40+ years and she's not going to support a dude who attacks the ADL and blames them for the failure of his company.

The problem with Elon is that he arrogantly thinks people are stupid and if they just listened to him they would come around to his "correct" understanding of any particular issue.

I'm the PP. Fine, your MIL canceled her Tesla. I would not have bought on in the first place, but that's because of the high subsidies to Musk at the expense of the tax payer.

BTW, I was at a Wawa in Manassas today with a row of five Tesla chargers at the station. Not a single one being used.

But that was a great government mandate with tax payer subsidies to install. /sarcasm

We couldn't have spent that money better on other things, huh? I'm sure Tesla and the employees enjoy the benefits of those corporate subsidies by force of government, but I don't.

Superchargers in cities tend to be low usage.... people charge at home and only use Superchargers--- which are hard on a battery-- while traveling or in a pinch. I am not sure those 5 chargers can really be used to measure demand for teslas.

The point is, these are deployed all over the country. What could the government have spent that money on instead of forking it over to Tesla to buy charging stations?

Why is the government even involved in buying charging stations? Let Tesla, a private company, roll the charging stations out on their own dime to create demand for their cars. A tax payer doesn't need to pay for this. This is not a legitimate function of government.

In fact, those government funds were not spent on something else because of this spending to subsidize Tesla. How is that a good decision?

It depends on whether you agree with expanding EV ownership. I am a long time owner of hybrids and EVs. The reason tesla has most of the market share for EVs is that it's extensive supercharger network makes range less of an issue. You don't need to have a backup gas car for long drives if you can be assured that you'll be able to quickly charge along the way. The second reason is that teslas charging technology is massively superior. Most EVs require extensive charging time. By contrast, I can usually fill up my tesla in 20 minutes, so it's not substantially more time spent refueling as compared to a gas car.

Other EV makers simply haven't produced charging technology that makes EVs feasible as a sole car option for most families. Being totally EV is possible with tesla. I only have EVs. And I do long trips quite frequently. This is why the government encouraged tesla to make a deal with the other EV makers that they could use the Tesla network. There's no other fast pathway to making non-tesla EVs into a vehicle option that anyone who travels more than 300 miles on a single day-- ever-- could use.

All this said, I also wish they wouldn't do this. One, I selfishly don't want to deal with crowded charging bays. And two, I don't really care if EV ownership expands. I am not convinced of the environmental benefits. And I don't think the grid can handle a massive increase in EV ownership. Petroleum is a form of energy diversification and shedding it before we have sufficient energy capacity with coal, nuclear, and (lolz) wind/solar isn't smart.

Actually, the question is whether you believe that people should be free to spend more of the money they earn or if government should take more of what they earn and decide how to spend it.

EV is in the marketplace. If you want one, buy it at your own cost with the full cost of ownership and stop asking strangers for part of their pay check to support your wants (and the earner forgoing whatever they want to spend their pay check on).

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just putting this out there: Blaming the Jews for your economic misfortunes is about the oldest trick in the book.

This will go about as well as his many claims about Twitter prior to his bid to buy it.

Exactly

[Anonymous]

Let the facts come out. Just hand waiving now for most of us.

[Anonymous]

ADL should publicize X suing them and encourage its supporters to question X's advertisers about supporting a company suing the ADL.

[Anonymous]

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)

[Anonymous]

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.