[grvbck]

> Gizmodo reached out to Grok-developer xAI for comment, but they have only responded with the usual automated reply, “Legacy Media Lies.”

European here, so perhaps not my place to have an opinion on domestic U.S. legal policies, and I don't want to make this political (although I guess it kind of is…) BUT:

Why are no media outlets on the offense when companies use these kinds of statements? Shouldn't Gizmodo, or its owner Keleops Media, treat this as slander and take it to court? If Grok's behavior can be objectively verified, why is it so easy for a company to get off the hook so easily just by saying "lies" and move on?

[alsetmusic]

USA citizen. I've so much lost faith in our media that this hadn't even occurred to me. You're right. This should be front and center and embarrassing the owner (that guy) every day.

[breve]

> Shouldn't Gizmodo, or its owner Keleops Media, treat this as slander and take it to court?

Slander is spoken. In print it's libel.

[grvbck]

TIL. Thanks!

[dm270]

Also european here. I would assume that it's not slander if it is a direct reply.

[clanky]

To get anywhere filing some kind of claim over this, Gizmodo would have to prove in court:

- The "Legacy Media Lies" was targeted at Gizmodo

- It was a false allegation (i.e. they might have to go through huge amounts of discovery as the defense tried to establish a single instance of dishonesty in past reporting)

- Grok/xAI knew the allegation was false

- The allegation caused such-and-such amount in damages

[arielcostas]

Fellow european here, the problem is they need to prove both than the statements are false ("legacy media lies" probably means you need to prove you haven't ever lied) plus show actual malice (intent to harm the plaintiff, in this case, Gizmodo, or acting with reckless disregard for the truth).

[kotaKat]

They'll just change the autoresponder to a shit emoji again.

[naian]

You’ll find it easy to prove that the legacy media has lied an uncountable amount of times, so it’s going to be hard to prove that this statement is slanderous.

[danielschreber]

As I barely passed calculus, I have no idea whatsoever how to prove that the cardinality of the set of legacy media lies is ℵ₁.

[notslander]

Another european here (very important fact)

Also not slander when its the pure truth verifiable with daily evidence

[beepbooptheory]

What goes into the "purity" of a truth? Are there impure truths?

[throwawayqqq11]

When you have the pure truth, why would you silently dismiss questions about your truth bot and not blast it 24/7?

Because right wingers cant handle criticsm. They dont want to correct, they want to silence their outgroups. Professionals would have at least replied with some meaningless PR text wall.