Are they legally obligated to advertise on X? I don't understand this. If someone doesn't want to put ads on X any longer, for whatever reason, isn't that their business? How can someone force a company to place ads on their site?
Right. Media matters didn't get the result it wanted so it intentionally manipulated it's account settings so it could. It took them several tries to do this. They were not honest about their process.
Unless Musk can show that Media Matters was lying about what Musk was doing, he has no case.
Seems pretty easy.
And since there is evidence that Musk has placed ads next to pro-Nazi posts,
You're doing the same thing MM is doing. You're citing a single instance without any context or without any broader research to quantify how often this happens because you want to imply it's being done intentionally.. which you have zero evidence for.
Well, since I don't have access to what Media Matters has discovered, and I don't really care enough about it to do any more research, how about a bet?
If Musk actually follows through with this, and he wins this case, I'll give you a very sincere apology and admit you were right.
If he loses the case, or drops it, you give me a very sincere apology and admit I was right.
How often does a company's ad need to be placed next to a pro-nazi post for it to count, in your opinion?
If that company didn't want it to happen even once, can't that be their right?
Let's spin this around. Let's say that some really conservative company had their ad placed next to, let's say, a pro-trans or pro-pedophilia post. And they pulled their ad because of that. Would you argue that it didn't happen enough to matter, or it was taken out of context?
Are they legally obligated to advertise on X? I don't understand this. If someone doesn't want to put ads on X any longer, for whatever reason, isn't that their business? How can someone force a company to place ads on their site?
Look up "tortious interference"
Doesn't matter much when it comes to things like media watchdog groups.
Tortious Interference: The Limits of Common Law Liability for Newsgathering https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1480&context=wmborj
Are you daft or just dull? Media matters is essentially shaming other companies into pulling advertisement in order to hurt X.
Right. Media matters didn't get the result it wanted so it intentionally manipulated it's account settings so it could. It took them several tries to do this. They were not honest about their process.
Seems pretty easy.
You're doing the same thing MM is doing. You're citing a single instance without any context or without any broader research to quantify how often this happens because you want to imply it's being done intentionally.. which you have zero evidence for.
Well, since I don't have access to what Media Matters has discovered, and I don't really care enough about it to do any more research, how about a bet?
If Musk actually follows through with this, and he wins this case, I'll give you a very sincere apology and admit you were right.
If he loses the case, or drops it, you give me a very sincere apology and admit I was right.
How about that?
How often does a company's ad need to be placed next to a pro-nazi post for it to count, in your opinion?
If that company didn't want it to happen even once, can't that be their right?
Let's spin this around. Let's say that some really conservative company had their ad placed next to, let's say, a pro-trans or pro-pedophilia post. And they pulled their ad because of that. Would you argue that it didn't happen enough to matter, or it was taken out of context?