Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Over Hate-Adjacent Ads Confirms Controversial Placement


Elon Musk’s company, formerly known as Twitter and now called X, has filed a lawsuit claiming defamation by a news organization over allegations that major companies had their ads appear next to antisemitic content. However, the lawsuit seems to inadvertently confirm the very thing it is accusing Media Matters of fabricating.

Key Takeaway

The lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s X against Media Matters over hate-adjacent ads inadvertently confirms that major companies had their ads displayed next to offensive content. While X claims that the images were manufactured, the evidence suggests that the ad placements were indeed genuine. The incident highlights the difficulty social networks face in moderating hateful content and protecting advertisers from potentially damaging associations.

The Allegations and Response

Last week, Media Matters published an article with screenshots showing ads from prominent companies like IBM, Apple, and Oracle displayed next to hateful content, including pro-Hitler material. Following the publication of the article, IBM and Apple withdrew their advertisements from X, dealing a significant blow to the company, which was already struggling with an exodus of advertisers. Complicating matters, Musk himself seemed to endorse certain antisemitic views.

Enraged by the article, Musk promised to file a “thermonuclear” lawsuit against Media Matters and those who collaborated in what he considered a fraudulent attack on X. The lawsuit was indeed filed, but it appears to lack the promised impact. X argues that Media Matters manufactured or contrived the images, implying that they were not genuine. However, X’s CEO, Linda Yaccarino, posted a statement contradicting this claim, stating that only two users witnessed Apple’s ad next to the offensive content.

The Controversy

Media Matters set up the conditions for these ads to appear by utilizing an account without ad filters and following hateful accounts as well as the corporate accounts of advertisers. Although the number of users solely following neo-Nazis and major tech brands is undoubtedly limited, the fact remains that the ads did appear alongside such content. Even X’s lawyers admit in the lawsuit that these accounts were known to produce extreme and fringe content but were not demonetized until Media Matters raised concerns.

It is clear, therefore, that the claim that the ads appeared next to the offensive content is not fraudulent or manufactured. While an authentic user may not have encountered this combination, the conditions for it to occur were not far-fetched. It is, indeed, challenging for social networks to moderate hateful content effectively, as they continuously battle against new iterations of hateful hashtags, usernames, and slang. X had previously claimed to protect brands from being associated with such content, but Media Matters’ illustration shows that the system was not foolproof.

Impact on Advertisers

The case presented by Media Matters may not represent the average user’s experience, but it demonstrates a plausible scenario that could happen on X. Consequently, advertisers have rationally opted to avoid such risks. Surprisingly, even companies not mentioned in the article, like Lionsgate, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount, and Sony, reportedly pulled their ads from X as a result of Media Matters’ alleged manipulation. However, it is worth noting that Lionsgate explicitly attributed their decision to leave X to “Elon’s tweet.”

The lawsuit, demanding $100,000 in damages and a jury trial, was filed in the Northern District Court of Texas. However, the likelihood of either outcome materializing remains uncertain. Nonetheless, this legal action serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenge social networks face in ensuring ad placement that aligns with brand values and avoids controversial content.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *