Life goals, don’t fuck up so bad that even Nestle wont work with you!
so a south African is suing a swiss company in American court? why just why is this theatrical bullshit allowed to go on so sick of this already times be changing too slowly we need the next phase already
Free the Super Mario Brothers!
Its an american company suing an american subsidiary of a swiss company. It makes sense. You dont have to try very hard to find the ridiculousness in these people but this isnt it.
He’s gone crazy from power. People like that are dangerous.
All people are like that. Our brains aren’t built to handle that kind of obscene wealth and power. It would break anyone, just as overindulging in any unhealthy activity.
The fix is to not let anyone accumulate that level of wealth.
I’m kind of alright with them accumulating some level of wealth, if the result is that they get a little trophy, a little island, and all their money redistributed. Like, congrats you won, now fuck off and let someone else win too.
Like Tom from MySpace. Dude sold it off and now lives a carefree life pursuing photography
That’s what we just tried (over the past century), when we gave an inch they took the whole god damn country. I don’t think the compromise approach will ever work.
i don’t understand how it’s a boycott or how is illegal or unfair
It’s not a boycott, neither is it illegal. He’s literally just being a crybaby and believes that anybody not pandering to his business model should be forced by the courts to give him money regardless.
And he’s now President of the US so he gets to make the laws.
And he bought the position fair and square.
Criminal contempt of business model
“The lawsuit isn’t the only place where executives have offered a pessimistic assessment of X’s business. The company’s owner Elon Musk reportedly told employees in January that “user growth is stagnant, revenue is unimpressive, and we’re barely breaking even.””
“We’re barely breaking even” mate, you’re supposedly in the business of online services since the late 90s, you should know that they’re generally “barely breaking even”
Just fire some people, that’ll drive profits up.
If suing companies for not advertising on your platform made any sense, porn sites could sue almost the whole economy.
How long until Tesla sues me for buying a Toyota?
Currently scheduled for 18th of March.
YouTube 10 years ago: we’re becoming as straight-edged as possible to keep advertisers around
Twitter now: Fuck you (wait we needed you)
It’s a Good Thing Elon doesn’t Own the DOJ!
Last year he told everybody to go fuck themselves. Now he’s crying. If there is somebody who needs to be deported, is it his narcistic, selfish, apartheid’s ass.
Yea, in a sane justice system, that one tweet would rpget this case thrown out on day 1. In the world we now live in, I’m not so sure.
Oh yes Nestle, the infamously lefty liberals.
“I ruined my business by supporting Nazis and it’s all your fault!”
Musk is not just supporting Nazis, he is a flaming Nazi himself.
Yes but this all happened before he even went full mask off.
Yes it absolutely did, but the platform was not run responsibly, and contained hate speech. Musk even claimed the Nazi content besides adverts was a rare fluke.
Which is obvious today is not true. What Musk may really want, is to normalize Nazi content.
“I’m in a government that condones - if not encourages - businesses from rejecting customers based on their own ideology, but don’t do it to me!”
Can someone explain to me how you can sue over a business choosing to not spend their advertising dollars on a particular service? I mean Elon specifically told his customers to “fuck off” and now he’s suing them?!? I just don’t understand these petulant little man children being so litigious when they get their feefees hurt.
Easy, you pack courts with shills, you eliminate government oversight, and then you do whatever you want.
The actual “easy” part is that you can sue anyone for pretty much anything. Suing is entirely different from winning the case.
Why they think they have a chance of winning is the weirder question, especially when Musk publically told the advertisers to go fuck themselves.
Don’t have to win, just drag the case out, causing both sides to spend fortunes on legal fees. Guess who has the most money.
X has an estimated market cap of $9.4 billion, whereas Nestlé has a market cap of $219 billion. That’s a corporate superpower with no qualms about monopolizing freshwater or bait- & switching breast milk formula from babies. And it’s just one of the companies they’re taking on, with a shitty case to boot. So yeah… if I was Elon I would keep my head down.
Paying a couple of five or six figure sums to continue advertising on X, versus paying millions to fight a protracted legal battle - I know which option the shareholders of those companies will be pushing for.
I hate this timeline so much.
Maybe it’ll turn around after the Bell protests
You mean the Bell Riots that started September 1, 2024? I’m not sure how to tell you this, but that didn’t happen on schedule.
Here’s the claim from the article:
The complaint alleges that the WFA “organized an advertiser boycott of Twitter through GARM, with the goal of coercing Twitter to comply with the GARM Brand Safety Standards to the satisfaction of GARM.” And it claims that these efforts succeeded in harming Twitter/X, with “at least” 18 GARM-affiliated advertisers stopping their purchase of ads on Twitter between November and December 2022, and other advertisers “substantially” reducing their spending.
Sure thing! I found an article that explains it better than I could:
Oh man. I wish OP would have posted this first.
The object of the lawsuit is to get these deep pocketed corporations to settle for millions. If the companies aren’t able to get the suits dismissed, they will settle. They don’t want to get on the wrong side of the current administration and it’s less costly than a years long legal battle.
It’s also a strong signal to future boycotters.
Instead of someone explaining, you could always read the article linked and see for yourself.
I did read the article.
For example how does this:
In fact, the lawsuit claims that ad prices on X “remain well below those charged by X’s closest competitors in the social media advertising market,” so “by refraining from purchasing advertising from X, boycotting advertisers are forgoing a valuable opportunity to purchase low-priced advertising inventory on a platform with brand safety that meets or exceeds industry standards.”
force someone or some company to spend their advertising dollars there. If a company spending ad money doesn’t like what the ad service represents, in this case Elon is a douchebag and we’ll just ignore the fact that he gave a Nazi salute at the inauguration, than they aren’t required to use them as a service, illegal boycott or not, which I don’t even believe is a thing.
Here’s a hyperbolic argument. Let’s just say for example we have two grocery stores. One promotes pedophilia and the other does not. The pedo grocery store has prices that are let’s say half of what the other grocery store is, because I don’t know fucking kids makes you feel generous. A bunch of people get together and decide they don’t wanna shop at NAMBLAmart. Is NAMBLAmart allow to sue me because I didn’t shop there?
Because unless I’m missing something, that’s pretty much the argument.
I think the attempted argument is anti-competitive collusion among all these companies. That GARM, fundamentally, is illegal as an anti-competitive initiative.
Thank you. This is exactly what kind of response I was looking for. I couldn’t find any logic in the argument at all. So essentially the organization is illegal. That at least makes some sense.
Edit: I mean I still think it’s bullshit but I can understand the argument now.
You can sue for anything.
i wounder if he will actually get a court to order that every person in the world owes him money.
cause that seems to be what he is working towards.
No, the case is that advertisers used an Ad Advisory Group called GARM, that monitored advertising platforms on their quality, like being family friendly and keeping things within the law. When they advised their customers that they could no longer vouch for X, many advertisers followed their guidance.
Obviously they are in their right to do so, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with the procedures that were followed, like it was NOT cartel or any other kind of shenanigans by the users of that service.
But Musk being a paranoid malignant narcissistic crybaby, saw it as a conspiracy directed against him personally. And the guy has more money than sense, so he is making a huge issue out of it.
Luckily USA is a nation of law, so he won’t get anywhere with that, just like he wouldn’t get away with calling people pedophiles for no other reason than to offend them. Thank god USA isn’t corrupt as hell, so we can trust the courts to do the right thing. /s
On the other hand we also have EU warning against advertising on X:
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/11/17/eu-commission-advises-services-to-stop-advertising-on-elon-musks-xThe eu commission warning was officially only aimed at their internal services, it wasn’t a mandate that all organisations within the eu should stop advertising on x. Though it wouldn’t surprise me if it comes to a total ban in the eu, X is already under investigation for disinformation.
it wasn’t a mandate
Yes it was “just” a warning for EU offices, But that’s still pretty remarkable, and this warning is widely publicly known, and I bet companies take notice.
But the point was also, that it’s not just GARM that had problems with how things are at Xitter, it’s official from EU that it’s not desirable to use Xitter anymore, based on much the same reasons GARM stated. For theirrecommendationwarning to avoid advertising on Xitter.So it’s evidence that GARM didn’t just make it up to harm Xitter. The same conclusions were reached elsewhere.
Though it wouldn’t surprise me if it comes to a total ban in the eu, X is already under investigation for disinformation.
We should absolutely do that, and introduce a special Tesla Tariff of 200%, due to unfair competition because the Tesla CEO is part of the government, and it is a blatantly conflict of interest for Musk to be there and be CEO of several companies at the same time.
Jimmy Carter sold his beloved Peanut Farm exactly to avoid a conflict of interest, but the American politicians, the public and the media today don’t give a shit about corruption. But it’s still illegal in EU.
EU warning against advertising on X
… and Musk supporting anti-EU parties.
Let me ask you this: how many ads have you run on Twitter? Does that strike you as fair?
If he does, they will lose ALL advertising
