X CORP. v. MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA and ERIC HANANOKI https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.383454/gov.uscourts.txnd.383454.1.0_1.pdf
>Many Anons myself included are STILL banned from using X/Twitter, not that I care to.
>Media Matters
DEEP pocket GANGSTERS, of the Rothschild variety
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff X Corp. prays for judgment in its favor and the following relief: 1. Actual and consequential damages caused by Defendants’ misconduct, including but not limited to all general and special damages; 2. A preliminary and permanent injunction ordering Defendants to immediately delete, take down, or otherwise remove the article entitled “As Musk Endorses Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory, X Has Been Placing Ads for Apple, Bravo, IBM, Oracle, and Xfinity Next to Pro-Nazi Content From Its Web” from all websites and social media accounts owned, controlled, or operated, directly or indirectly, by Defendants; 3. X Corp.’s costs and attorneys’ fees to litigate this action; and 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
FoiaFan🇮🇱 @15poundstogo In case anyone is wondering who Media Matters is. In December of 2019, Media Matters donated $950,000 to The Good Land Committee, Inc., which was the host committee for the 2020 DNC convention. Then, six months later, they got a full refund. Big Dem money-shuffling group. 5:35 PM · Nov 19, 2023 https://twitter.com/15poundstogo/status/1726368613802590526
 |  |
ChatGPT4 Summarized Complaint
The document titled "Musk vs. Media Matters" is a legal complaint filed by X Corp., a Nevada corporation (implied to be associated with Elon Musk), against Media Matters for America, a Washington D.C. non-profit corporation, and Eric Hananoki. This complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleges that Media Matters engaged in a campaign to harm X Corp.'s social media platform (implied to be Twitter) by creating and publishing false and misleading content.
Key Allegations in the Complaint:
Media Matters' Tactics: The complaint accuses Media Matters of portraying X Corp.'s social media platform negatively by manufacturing images showing advertisers’ posts next to neo-Nazi and white-nationalist content. This portrayal was allegedly intended to drive away advertisers and damage X Corp.
Platform Description: X Corp.'s platform is described as facilitating free expression and open discourse, with over 500 million active monthly users. It relies heavily on advertising for its revenue.
Manipulation of User Experience: Media Matters is accused of manipulating the X platform's algorithms to create false impressions of ad placements next to racist and incendiary content. These activities are claimed to be deliberately engineered to harm X Corp.'s business relationships and reputation.
Impact on Advertisers: The document alleges that Media Matters' actions led to significant advertisers withdrawing their ads from the X platform, citing specific examples like Apple, NBCUniversal, and IBM.
Media Matters' Intention: The complaint characterizes Media Matters as a group dedicated to targeting conservative media, alleging that their actions against X Corp. were part of a broader campaign against conservative viewpoints.
Legal Claims: X Corp. presents several legal claims, including interference with contract, business disparagement, and interference with prospective economic advantage. The complaint seeks damages, a preliminary and permanent injunction against Media Matters, and attorneys' fees.
Summary of the Legal Filing: This legal document represents a significant clash between a major social media platform (associated with Elon Musk) and a media watchdog organization. The core of the dispute is the alleged intentional manipulation and misrepresentation by Media Matters to damage X Corp.'s reputation and financial standing by falsely associating it with extremist content. This case highlights the broader context of media accountability, free speech, and the power dynamics between social media platforms and media organizations. The outcome of this legal battle could have implications for how social media companies manage content and relationships with third-party watchdogs and advertisers.
