Twitter is threatening legal action against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a nonprofit that researches hate speech and content moderation on social media platforms.

The letter from Twitter’s lawyers alleges that CCDH’s research publications are intended to ‘harm Twitter’s business by driving advertisers away from the platform with incendiary claims.’

This is a pretty bold move from Twitter, especially considering that CCDH is a well-respected organization that has been doing this kind of research for years. And it’s especially ironic coming from Elon Musk, who has said that he’s a ‘free speech absolutist.’

But Musk has also shown that he’s sensitive to criticism, so it’s not surprising that he’s taking this kind of action against CCDH

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    ·
    1 year ago

    Elon used to love saying he was a Free Speech Absolutist, but once again that only extends to speech he likes.

    • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      106
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I love it. The gist is:

      • hate speech is running rampant on your platform.
      • you’re doing nothing to stop it.
      • here’s our evidence.
      • where’s your e idence?
      • why are you spending time and money on fighting us instead of on fighting the literal white supremacist death threats on your platform?
      • telling us we’ve not sampled enough tweets while you’re in the process of making impossible the mass sampling of tweets is…a bit rich.
      • we’re not intimidated by your threats
      • your threats are also bullshit
      • we’re not gonna stop

      It’s a textbook example of “no u” in grown up language. Bravo.

      • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        61
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not to mention how it starts with

        “We write in response to the ridiculous letter you sent our clients on behalf of X Corp.”

        They are not taking any BS. I love it.

      • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Legal snark is by far the most expensive brand of humor, but when it’s deployed on your behalf it’s so goddamn satisfying.

        During a hearing in my divorce, I answered a question from the judge, the other lawyer says “we can’t have hearsay in this discussion”, my lawyer responds “well this will be a short hearing then because everything in your client’s motion is hearsay”.

        That little snap cost me about $15 but it was worth it.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      82
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The best part of it:

      If your clients do file suit, please be advised that CCDH intends to seek immediate discovery regarding hate speech and misinformation on the Twitter platform; Twitter’s policies and practices relating to these issues; and Twitter’s advertising revenue. In that event, a court will determine for itself the truth of the statements in our client’s report in accordance with the time-tested rules of civil procedure and evidence.

      Now that is a nuclear statement in a lawyers letter…

    • Dima@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      1 year ago

      I love that this is a legal letter and yet contains the very direct phrase:

      That threat is bogus and you know it.

  • iegod@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    1 year ago

    Evidence based documentation is going to be hard to win against, unless the plan is just drag them through legal proceedings until they can’t afford it. The american dream.

    • Rhabuko@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wouldn’t surprise me if in this case enough people would donate. Enough people are sick of Musk at this point.

    • sic_1@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, free speech and evidence based documentation will be fine, Musk won’t be able to afford prolongued legal proceedings. American dream indeed.

  • madjo@geddit.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 year ago

    Does Stinky believe that by suing these researchers, the rise in hate speech didn’t happen?!

  • rodneyck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    The man-child billionaire says he is not for censorship, while using the judicial system to censor.

  • MisterMoo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    We don’t need to call it X or even the platform formerly known as Twitter. It’s just Twitter.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sue everyone you don’t like. That’s the thin-skinned, narcissistic billionaire way.

    Doesn’t matter if they’re right or wrong, pile up the costs and they’ll all cave in.

  • Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wasn’t he all about free speech and even against censorship?

    “ I think if you go down the censorship route, it’s only a matter of time before censorship is turned upon you.” -musk

  • MSids@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they go to court, wouldn’t the court make them prove that the claim was false or defamation? And if CCDH can prove that it’s not false or defamation then now it’s legal record that hate speech has increased since the takeover? This all seems ok with me.

    • Comment105@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not how the American court system works.

      A company like Twitter can bleed the CCDH dry and just walk away with a frivolous lawsuit and a minor (insignificant) penalty.

      And the way that works is not by accident.

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In a defamation lawsuit, it would not be X that had to prove it was a lie. It would be CCDH that had to prove it had evidence for their claims (notice that it does not need to be true, only has to be reasonable for CCDH to believe it is true based on evidence they had).