For those who don’t want to read the whole thing, this is the hilariously bad argument Twitter is making:

X is trying to argue that the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) violated the site’s terms of service and illegally accessed non-public data to conduct its reporting, allegedly posing a security risk for X. The boycott, X alleged, cost the company tens of millions of dollars by spooking advertisers, while X contends that the CCDH’s reporting is misleading and ads are rarely served on extremist content.

So their argument is that it was forseeable that allowing hate speech on the platform would cause financial losses??? Then why the fuck did they do it?