- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
And what makes an advertising boycott legally actionable? "We want less regulation. "
"No!!! You can’t avoid my shithole platform. "
Free speech means they don’t have to advertise there.
Look who’s talking, mofo… The guy did things that screwed over advertising on the late Twitter.
Who’s running Tesla? Doesn’t seem like he’s spending a lot of time with it lately.
As a result, quality will likely go up.
I hear that’s why SpaceX runs well. They keep Elon away from all the important stuff.
Nestlé accused of having a modicum of an ethical backbone. Interesting.
Fucking hell, I’m supporting Nestle on a situation?
I want off this fucking roller coaster.
Well, the clown told them to release the dams, which Nestle makes money from, probably not to keen on that.
Isn’t this extortion? Since when are companies obliged to advertise on any platform?
Since Elon Musk became president.
Careful, you might get sued for not advertising on X. I’m presently planning to buy ads confirming that I have nothing to sell. You know, for “protection.”
Shut up, it’s sarcasm, leave me alone.
Good thing you said sarcasm. Otherwise I’d have to take out an x campaign, in all caps, using your sorry post as an example of a conservative oligarch supporting troll.
I hate that the world has become so stupid that I have to say it. Used to be a person could say something absurd and it was obvious that they were joking.
Only now, they become president and actually do the dumb things they post. I feel ya, buddy.
I think the crux of it is they are claiming collusion, in an anti-trust way. But I haven’t heard the lawyers claim that once. Not once.
I assumed he’s trying to get those settlement payout bribes that trump is cashing in on
I commented on it below. There are no specifics in the article, but from the phrasing “collective action among competing”, my guess is that this is probably an antitrust claim. That is, there’s no obligation to buy service from a given company, but there may be an obligation for competitors to not collude in making buy/not-buy decisions from a supplier.
But if my memory is at all correct, they kinda all chose to leave/scale-back because of all the Nazi/hate speech “conservative” talk on Twitter. He then went full Karen and told them to F’off he didn’t want/need them anyway.
I think this is just a way to try and get free money now that he has bought an administration with a DoJ for hire. It’s time for him to try and get a return on that investment.
Your memory is all correct.
And I’m no lawyer, but I’m guessing him telling them to fuck off is not going to help his court case.
Musk will do anything to get advertisers back, except remove the nazi content from his platform.
Why would he remove the content he bought the platform to promote?
But I thought he told them to go fuck themselves? I wonder why that didn’t work.
Lonnie, you big stupid baby, at least you looked cool to your blathering legion of mouth-breathing fans.
What is the supposed legal basis of this?
Collusion among all the big players in an industry, in order to exclude other players from succeeding in that industry is indeed anti-competitive, and potentially illegal. There’s potential merit here in businesses coordinating with each other on who to blacklist withing the industry, which is why lawyers were willing to take on the case.
Ultimately, it’s a question for a judge whether they’re doing this for the purpose of suppressing competition, somehow, or whether they’re doing it for valid business reasons (like, say, avoiding a company with a history of not paying its bills, or avoiding a company with a history of sabotaging business relationships, or avoiding a company that their own customers actively hate, and would lose them business).
Of course, with the courts the way they are these days, I’m not holding my breath for the obviously-sensible ruling.
Something about a conspiracy theory that they are colluding against Obergruppenführer Musk.
Musk is a petulant child who is running the government now, and will abuse it to whatever ends he desires
This is honestly the most likely reason.
Because legally speaking X has an uphill battle to try and prove collusion. Brands are not competitors, they’re buyers. Outside of some outstanding finding that GARM and co. colluded with the likes of Facebook and Snapchat for kick backs or rate reductions, X doesn’t have a win here.
The thing Poppa X does have is lots of money. So far that’s worked a little, the WFA has shut down GARM citing that the legal battle has “drained its resources and finances.” But the WFA and some of the brands they represent are still named (Unilever has settled - never heard of them) - do they have the cash to push back? WFA doesn’t, they’re a non-profit. The rest? Not sure.
I hope he steps on some LEGO.
I hope a Lego gets permanently stuck in each of his shoes. at an angle. fuck it make it two bricks per shoe. I’ll pay. make it three.
Advertising on a Nazi platform is bad for business.
A boycott is organised, you don’t need to organise rational self interest.
I want so bad for the judge to see this shit on their docket and immediately throw the book at Elon. Figuratively. And literally.
(Actually, let him go ahead and sue Nestlé; they deserve it for other reasons)
Fuck off you fucking snowflake fuck. Fuck.
Musk wants in on the cascade of
bribessettlements that Trump has been collecting.Pretty sure the defense just needs to play this video and walk away https://youtu.be/U_M_uvDChJQ?si=LyTe04r6urqlR2Hy
