• Talaraine@fedia.io
    30·
    10 months ago

    I think this article might be looking at this wrong. Corporations play all kinds of shell games with organizations and lawyers and there are plenty of examples where corps duck responsibility by dissolving or sometimes even reorganizing these organizations.

    Just because GARM has dissolved doesn’t mean this kind of movement is over… like at all. The article itself states several similar lawsuits that failed.

    • mkwtEnglish
      17·
      10 months ago

      Yeah. You can’t sue GARM, because GARM is dead. You win! Pay no attention to the recently incorporated “GARM 2”.

      • The_vEnglish
        11·
        10 months ago

        One time in my industry, a small startup company in Israel caused around 4 million dollars in damage due to negligence in the U.S., Mexico and Honduras.

        A month later that company was out of business. All their assets where purchased by another company. Conveniently the new owners were kids the old companies owners. The old owners where I hired on as “consultants”.

  • shalafiEnglish
    27·
    10 months ago

    “Everyone can see that advertising on X is a treacherous business relationship for advertisers,”

    Said the same yesterday. Imagine throwing money at X after all this.

  • OhStopYellingAtMeEnglish
    20·
    10 months ago

    Hey guys. I’m starting to suspect that this Elon Musk fella is not a very nice dude.

  • MehBlahEnglish
    8·
    10 months ago

    Just the snakes eating their own tail. Nonprofit doesn’t mean unbiased or non commercial goals. Whoever was funding them will just move on to another non profit.

  • SnapzEnglish
    4·
    10 months ago

    Him and that Linda as his conniving lapdog.

    • PheganEnglish
      111·
      10 months ago

      Nobody was conspiring, they just stopped advertising on a sinking ship.

    • Rampsquatch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      61·
      10 months ago

      Except I doubt the conspired. I find it far more likely that they all saw what Muskrat was doing and didn’t want to do business with him, because he’s an ass.

      Also he told them to go fuck themselves, so yea.

    • mkwtEnglish
      11·
      10 months ago

      I rather doubt that buyer boycotts are actually illegal (with the exception of the anti Israel boycotts).

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
          4·
          10 months ago

          What monopoly? There are many platforms for ad placement. Boycotting one platform doesn’t make the rest of the market a monopoly.

        • mkwtEnglish
          3·
          10 months ago

          A monopoly exists when there is only one seller of a product. A monopsony exists when there is only one buyer of a product.

          I’m really not sure that the Sherman Antitrust Act regulates artificial monopsonies the same way it does with monopolies