There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

todd_bonzalez ,

You can sue people for choosing not to do business with you?

Musk is such a fucking baby. He has no basis for this. He made major changes to the site, including a complete rebrand, and advertisers left. That’s the fucking free market, and he’s gonna sue?

ZoopZeZoop ,

He can sue, but he won’t win in any sane court.

solomon42069 ,

No sane court? So it has a real chance of being decided by The Supreme Court…

halcyoncmdr ,
@halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world avatar

They’d never even hear it. To give this lawsuit any credibility, they’d have to effectively say that businesses spending/donating money is not free speech. Which would effectively be the opposite of Citizens United.

eestileib ,

You think they give a shit about consistency?

solomon42069 ,

All that matters is the sponsorship tier - will you be flying the judge out to a vacation? Buying their mother a house? The outcome is solely dependent on your investment in the court. Justice.

helenslunch ,
@helenslunch@feddit.nl avatar

You can sue people for choosing not to do business with you?

You can sue people for whatever you want. But that’s not what they’re suing them for, if you actually read the article. They’re suing for collusion.

X CEO Linda Yaccarino said in a video announcement that the lawsuit stemmed in part from evidence uncovered by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, which she said showed a “group of companies organized a systematic illegal boycott” against X.

The Republican-led committee had a hearing last month looking at whether current laws are “sufficient to deter anticompetitive collusion in online advertising.”

I don’t know if that’s illegal or not.

seaQueue ,
@seaQueue@lemmy.world avatar

Ah yes, the pinnacle of small govt: legislating how advertisers spend their money when they won’t spend that money on Republican platforms

RedditWanderer ,

Even funnier, he literally told advertisers to go fuck themselves lol. Now he goes whining back to Mommy for new rules for his little kingdom.

Telorand ,

https://media1.tenor.com/m/zkoIACGvSEIAAAAd/are-you.gif

ETA: He really is a 13yo in a 53yo body.

Altomes ,

One of the most poignant comments I’ve seen on this is it’s a ploy to draw attention from his PAC and other negative media

pikmeir ,

While I think it will have that effect, Musk isn’t smart enough to have thought about it that deeply.

Hellinabucket ,

Dunno how much attention it’s gonna draw away from it when it inevitably comes out that his PAC funded the committee that turned over the “evidence” that’s being used to prop up his court case.

empireOfLove2 ,

You can’t sue people for… making normal business decisions? You’d think Musk would understand that if he was a real businessman, LOL RIGHT he’s not.

Darkassassin07 ,
@Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca avatar

I hope exhibit A of the defences evidence is Elon telling them all to go fuck themselves.

magnetosphere ,
@magnetosphere@fedia.io avatar

This is hilarious.

Should every company, regardless of whether they’ve advertised on Twitter before, be federally mandated to spend a certain percentage of their advertising budget on Musk’s little shitshow?

What, exactly, is the solution he has in mind?

eee ,

More government intervention in markets, because that’s what Republicans stand f- oh wait, er…

DxK ,

Elon Musk: Your honor these mean jerks won’t pay to advertise in my nazi bar and it hurts my feels.

Empricorn ,

You can sue your… customers, basically for choosing not to do business with you!?

Even if he wins a one-time payment (no way), how could this do anything but make everyone not want to advertise on Twitter??

nonailsleft ,

You don’t understand. Bad publicity is good publicity.

Or maybe, in this particular case… No publicity.

No publicity is good bad publicity like… Well yeah you might have a point there

Vanth ,
@Vanth@reddthat.com avatar

I had to skim quite a few down the search results to find an article that described what it meant by suing for “illegal boycott” in more detail.

variety.com/…/elon-musk-x-sues-advertisers-garm-b…

X’s lawsuit alleged that the advertisers’ “boycott” violated Section 1 the U.S.’s Sherman Act antitrust law, which broadly prohibits agreements among distinct actors that unreasonably restrain trade, “by withholding purchases of digital advertising from Twitter.”

“The conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators alleged herein is per se illegal, or, in the alternative, illegal under the Rule of Reason or ‘quick look’ analytical framework,” the X lawsuit said. “There are no procompetitive effects of the group boycott, which was not reasonably related to, or reasonably necessary for, any procompetitive objectives of the GARM Brand Safety Standards.”

The “unlawful conduct” alleged by X is the subject of “an active investigation” by the House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary, the lawsuit said. The committee’s interim report issued on July 10 concluded that, “The extent to which GARM has organized its trade association and coordinates actions that rob consumers of choices is likely illegal under the antitrust laws and threatens fundamental American freedoms. The information uncovered to date of WFA and GARM’s collusive conduct to demonetize disfavored content is alarming.”

TheBigBrother ,

Elon’s temper tantrum…

Nurse_Robot ,

I remember when this was announced 2 years ago. Any update?

Lost_My_Mind ,

Former twitter is still shit.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •