On 27 September, the Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) and Integrity Institute filed an amicus brief in opposition to the lawsuit that X has filed against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). This lawsuit is more than just a legal dispute—it’s a direct assault on the very foundation of independent research. The lawsuit, originally filed by X in July 2023, attempts to penalize CCDH for their research and published reports that examined the prevalence of hate speech on the platform.
Earlier this year, a district court dismissed the case, recognizing X’s lawsuit for what it is: a retaliatory move aimed at punishing CCDH for exposing uncomfortable truths about the platform’s role in amplifying harmful content. Despite this ruling, X has continued its legal offensive, now appealing the decision in a blatant effort to quash free speech and undermine research that serves the public interest.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. If X succeeds, it would set a dangerous precedent that allows tech giants to shield themselves from scrutiny by burying researchers in costly lawsuits, effectively silencing anyone who dares to analyze and report on how social media platforms like X shape public discourse. This lawsuit is not just about one platform or one report—it could have far-reaching consequences for the future of independent research into the societal impacts of technology.
Why the Coalition Is Getting Involved
The Coalition and Integrity Institute’s brief underscores the importance of safeguarding the rights of independent researchers to study, analyze, and publicly report on digital platforms without the threat of legal retaliation. Specifically, we argue that:
- Independent research on social media platforms benefits both the public and platforms.
Independent research into how social media platforms operate is essential to public understanding and discourse. Researchers provide valuable insights into the moderation practices, algorithmic impacts, and societal consequences of these platforms. The brief highlights that public interest research helps the public navigate complex online environments, informs policymakers, and even benefits platforms by identifying areas for improvement—particularly as many platforms are limiting their investments in critical trust and safety infrastructure. Suppressing this type of research, as X is attempting to do, would deprive both the public and the platforms themselves of vital information that promotes transparency, accountability, and better governance of online spaces. - Platforms often target unflattering research by claiming “technical violations” that result in only reputational injury.
The brief underscores that X’s lawsuit is a retaliatory move designed to punish CCDH for exposing hate speech on the platform. In doing so, X is attempting to use its terms of service as a pretext to claim that CCDH’s data collection methods violated the company’s rules, while in reality, the lawsuit is an attempt to silence critical research that uncovers inconvenient truths about X’s role in promoting harmful content. Drawing parallels to historical instances where corporations have sought to stifle research that is critical of their practices, the brief argues that allowing X’s suit to proceed would open the floodgates for tech companies to selectively enforce their terms of service to stall research and suppress unfavorable findings, ultimately chilling independent, non-commercial research that is squarely in the public interest.
Why This Case Matters
This case has far-reaching implications beyond just the researchers directly involved. If X succeeds in its legal strategy, it could set a precedent where any platform can use legal threats to silence researchers whose findings might cast the company in a negative light. This would severely hamper the public’s ability to understand and critically engage with the digital environments they use daily.
The case also highlights how powerful companies, like X, are increasingly seeking to control not just the content on their platforms but also the discourse around their practices. The Coalition and Integrity Institute’s brief emphasizes that independent research is vital in ensuring transparency and accountability in the digital age.
Read the Coalition’s brief here.
About CITR: The Coalition is a fiscally sponsored project of Aspiration, a registered 501(c)3 non-profit organization. This brief was written by Max Mishkin and Seth Berlin at Ballard Spahr.