[icy_deadposts]

Demand $100000

Why sue for billions when you could sue for dr evil pinkie to mouth hundreds of thousands?

LMAO:

Media Matters therefore resorted to endlessly scrolling and refreshing its unrepresentative, hand selected feed, generating between 13 and 15 more times advertisements per hour than viewed by the average X user repeating this inauthentic activity until it finally received pages containing the result it wanted: controversial content next to X's largest advertiser's paid posts

[Tadpole9181]

AKA: caught X violating their explicit contract to never serve their ads next to that content?

"Your honor, the prosecution had to dig through thousands of transactions to find the one where I embezzled money!"

[vaidhy]

Even one instance is sufficient, right? So, is it ok if one in 15 users see this kind of ad?

If I were to do a performance test, I do not run one request through and claim it is representational. I do a large test and test at 99th percentile. No one claims that since I ran many requests, my tests are invalid.

You are reaching out to find a bright spot.

[addicted]

I don’t understand. So they did get “controversial content”.

What’s the argument then?

Further, how is this not free speech anyways.

[two_handfuls]

Right, this sounds like perfectly normal behavior when you want to check whether any ad appears next to any controversial content.

of course they would refresh and scroll a lot.

[defrost]

So ... less than the amount of adverts served to 20 average users then?

On a platform supposed serving "millions" ..

That's, uhhh, at least 50,000 instances of IBM adverts next to Nazi hatespeech per million users per hour?

That's probably waaay to much for the company founded by Herman Hollerith and his whacky punch cards so loved by the Reich.