In a turn of events as predictable as a Bond villain monologue, Elon Musk’s social media venture formerly known as Twitter, now trendily labelled X (because apparently single letters are the future), has decided to sue Media Matters for America. The lawsuit claims the media watchdog engaged in what it described as a “brazen attempt to mislead advertisers” by pointing out that ads from major brands were appearing right next to some of the platform’s more unsavoury content, including white nationalist posts. X insists this portrayal is not only wrong but damaging, a statement which begs the question of whether the damage was philosophical, financial, or simply to ego.
The kerfuffle began when Media Matters published a report highlighting screenshots of advertisements from companies such as IBM, Apple and other corporate giants planted rather awkwardly beside content that even the darkest corners of the internet might nervously shuffle away from. The gist of the watchdog’s report was that X’s brand safety measures were about as effective as a sieve in a rainstorm.
In response, X, wielding the full force of billionaire indignation, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Texas. Their argument hinges on the claim that Media Matters created an artificial use-case scenario that is not reflective of how real people interact with the platform. Essentially they say Media Matters opened incognito tabs, followed extremist accounts, refreshed the feed more aggressively than a teenager trying to buy concert tickets, and eventually got the algorithm to cough up the ad-post juxtapositions they wanted to see. All of which, X argues, amounts to a digital sting operation rather than an accurate portrayal of the everyday user’s experience. Call it Journalistic Catfishing, if you will.
Media Matters responded by doing what it does best, which is doubling down while quoting the First Amendment like it is the chorus to a protest anthem. The group maintains that their reporting was entirely accurate and reflective of real risks, and said the lawsuit was nothing more than a rich man’s hissy fit disguised in legal filings. They note that the ads did appear next to hateful content, and that this was not the result of a magic trick but of how the platform’s algorithm treats even the worst kind of engagement like a warm hug.
The case carries broader implications for online content moderation, brand safety, and the apparently fine art of algorithmic denial. While Elon Musk has long styled himself a free speech absolutist (provided that speech flatters his worldview), advertisers tend to be slightly less enthusiastic about having their logos juxtaposed with calls for racial purity. A detail which, it seems, remains relevant to the bottom line no matter how many bots one has on payroll.
As the legal drama unfolds, X is attempting to reassure advertisers that their brands are safe in Musk’s hands, although judging by recent headlines, those hands are already juggling quite the circus.
Nothing says brand integrity like suing someone for showing your brand next to Nazis.