Twitter is suing because companies won't advertise with them.

[evillawyer]

What say ye, defenders of the free market?

 

[just bob]

Of course there is more to it than that, and you know it.... Rumble has now joined. I'm sure others will follow.

Probably should have just thrown this in the huffhines anti-twitter love to hate thread. lol

 

[evillawyer]

Of course there is more to it than that, and you know it.... Rumble has now joined. I'm sure others will follow.

Probably should have just thrown this in the huffhines anti-twitter love to hate thread. lol

The whole idea of a boycott is people get together and decide that they are all not going to do business with some company because of reason XYZ. I have never done antitrust law, but I have no idea how that could be illegal if all are acting voluntarily. Seems entailed by the freedom of speech and association.

 

[MontyPython]

Elon Musk now suing companies that once advertised on Twitter because they decided to no longer advertise on Twitter.

Pure. Genius.

I'll say this about that dumb ****... he's losing his ass on his overpriced Twitter purchase. Combined with his moronic overt support of Trump and his affinity for conspiracy theories, he's gonna **** himself out of another $100 billion over the next year I think.

Hey Elon... go **** yourself.

And BTW... when Kamala wins this November, you've completely ****ed yourself with the next administration for your political idiocy.

PS: South Africa sucks donkeys.

...

"The lawsuit is the latest effort by X to revive its core ad business, which has tanked since Musk’s takeover. Many brands have pulled their spending over concerns that their ads might run alongside misinformation or hate speech, which Musk himself has occasionally promoted. The suit also continues Musk’s habit of feuding with the advertisers whose money he relies on; last year, he told brands who had left the platform to “go f*** yourself.”

X leaders have alternately portrayed the platform’s ad business as recovering, then struggling, then recovering again. But X CEO Linda Yaccarino painted a dire picture in a video posted to the platform Monday. “They conspired to boycott X, which threatens our ability to thrive in the future,” she said of the GARM members, adding that the loss in advertising dollars placed the company “at long-term risk.”

 

[n_huffhines]

This lawsuit is kind of insane territory. Elon Musk is so in favor of speech that he wants the government courts to force others to pay to speak on his platform.

 

[hog88]

This lawsuit is kind of insane territory. Elon Musk is so in favor of speech that he wants the government courts to force others to pay to speak on his platform.

That's not exactly true, X's lawsuit is about WFA violating antitrust laws. If their own internal emails are true then X probably wins the case.

 

[MontyPython]

That's not exactly true, X's lawsuit is about WFA violating antitrust laws. If their own internal emails are true then X probably wins the case.

Nope. WFA opines. Companies can heed their advice or ignore it.

This is Elon screaming I'M ****ED.

 

[LSU-SIU]

This lawsuit is kind of insane territory. Elon Musk is so in favor of speech that he wants the government courts to force others to pay to speak on his platform.

From what I gather it has to do with anti-trust. The problem is... the federal government is now in favor or even coordinating this type of behavior.

 

[hog88]

Nope. WFA opines. Companies can heed their advice or ignore it.

This is Elon screaming I'M ****ED.

It goes a bit deeper than that if those emails exist.

“Internally, GARM celebrated — and took responsibility for — the massive economic harm imposed on Twitter by the boycott, boasting within just a few months of the start of the boycott that ‘they [Twitter] are 80% below revenue forecasts,'” the 44-page complaint states.

The boast was made by GARM head Rob Rakowitz, whose internal emails were obtained by the House Judiciary Committee. The Republican-led panel published a damning report in July, detailing how GARM suppressed online speech and pulled ads from companies, including X, as part of its illegal boycott.

“Evidence obtained by the Committee shows that GARM and its members directly organized boycotts and used other indirect tactics to target disfavored platforms, content creators, and news organizations in an effort to demonetize and, in effect, limit certain choices for consumers,” the 39-page report says.

X Sues Advertisers for Boycotting Social-Media Platform after Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover | National Review

 

[C-south]

Elon Musk now suing companies that once advertised on Twitter because they decided to no longer advertise on Twitter.

Pure. Genius.

I'll say this about that dumb ****... he's losing his ass on his overpriced Twitter purchase. Combined with his moronic overt support of Trump and his affinity for conspiracy theories, he's gonna **** himself out of another $100 billion over the next year I think.

Hey Elon... go **** yourself.

And BTW... when Kamala wins this November, you've completely ****ed yourself with the next administration for your political idiocy.

PS: South Africa sucks donkeys.

...

"The lawsuit is the latest effort by X to revive its core ad business, which has tanked since Musk’s takeover. Many brands have pulled their spending over concerns that their ads might run alongside misinformation or hate speech, which Musk himself has occasionally promoted. The suit also continues Musk’s habit of feuding with the advertisers whose money he relies on; last year, he told brands who had left the platform to “go f*** yourself.”

X leaders have alternately portrayed the platform’s ad business as recovering, then struggling, then recovering again. But X CEO Linda Yaccarino painted a dire picture in a video posted to the platform Monday. “They conspired to boycott X, which threatens our ability to thrive in the future,” she said of the GARM members, adding that the loss in advertising dollars placed the company “at long-term risk.”

It’s funny when you looney libs lose your s***.

 

[vols4sure]

This lawsuit is kind of insane territory. Elon Musk is so in favor of speech that he wants the government courts to force others to pay to speak on his platform.

Surely you understand that the lawsuit is about organizations and certain companies conspiring to prevent other companies from advertising on the platform? It is not about Company A or Company B deciding they do not want to advertise on the platform.

 

[dalton_vol]

Elon Musk now suing companies that once advertised on Twitter because they decided to no longer advertise on Twitter.

Pure. Genius.

I'll say this about that dumb ****... he's losing his ass on his overpriced Twitter purchase. Combined with his moronic overt support of Trump and his affinity for conspiracy theories, he's gonna **** himself out of another $100 billion over the next year I think.

Hey Elon... go **** yourself.

And BTW... when Kamala wins this November, you've completely ****ed yourself with the next administration for your political idiocy.

PS: South Africa sucks donkeys.

...

"The lawsuit is the latest effort by X to revive its core ad business, which has tanked since Musk’s takeover. Many brands have pulled their spending over concerns that their ads might run alongside misinformation or hate speech, which Musk himself has occasionally promoted. The suit also continues Musk’s habit of feuding with the advertisers whose money he relies on; last year, he told brands who had left the platform to “go f*** yourself.”

X leaders have alternately portrayed the platform’s ad business as recovering, then struggling, then recovering again. But X CEO Linda Yaccarino painted a dire picture in a video posted to the platform Monday. “They conspired to boycott X, which threatens our ability to thrive in the future,” she said of the GARM members, adding that the loss in advertising dollars placed the company “at long-term risk.”

I'm sure you'll tweet about it

 

[MontyPython]

It goes a bit deeper than that if those emails exist.



X Sues Advertisers for Boycotting Social-Media Platform after Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover | National Review

So when you allow Nazi to post next to your corporate brand ad, what you think gonna happen gramps.

You gonna advertise your trucking company next to Nazi ads?

Fun fact: Many brands have halted their paid advertising on the platform, leading to a monthly U.S. ad revenue drop of at least 55% year-over-year since Musk took over.

 

[just bob]

This lawsuit is kind of insane territory. Elon Musk is so in favor of speech that he wants the government courts to force others to pay to speak on his platform.

Extremely disingenuous, per usual. No different than your other hardcore leftist friends.

 

[n_huffhines]

Surely you understand that the lawsuit is about organizations and certain companies conspiring to prevent other companies from advertising on the platform? It is not about Company A or Company B deciding they do not want to advertise on the platform.

I admit you and hog are right to some degree, it isn't exactly as I said....but it's not an antitrust violation and he can try to sue on those grounds, but the reason for all of this is he doesn't like what freedom of speech and freedom of association resulted in for his company, and now he's crying no fair to the courts...which is a violation of GARM's right to speech.

Tech Dirt is a pretty good law blog.

So, last week ExTwitter was “excited to announce” that it’s rejoined GARM, and this week Elon says that GARM’s leaders should be criminally prosecuted, and he planned to sue them himself.

Cool, cool.

I can just imagine how Linda Yaccarino must feel about this. She clearly orchestrated the return to GARM as part of her desperate push to lure back advertisers.

But let’s be clear about this. Companies have their own First Amendment rights not to associate with anyone they want. And that includes not advertising on websites where your ads might show up next to controversial content, disinformation, or just general nonsense. Many companies recognize that it is bad for business to have advertisements showing up next to disinformation.

Private companies choosing not to advertise is not a violation of any law, civil or criminal. Private organizations setting up guidelines for brand safety is not an antitrust violation. Private organizations choosing not to advertise on the site formerly known as Twitter is an expression of their own First Amendment rights not to associate with whatever nonsense Elon is promoting these days.

Anyway, all that effort that Yaccarino put into “rejoining GARM” last week just went up in smoke. She was trying to convince advertisers that ExTwitter was a safe place for brand advertising, but now Elon is saying ExTwitter will be suing GARM and pushing for criminal prosecutions of everyone involved in GARM.

Elon Says ExTwitter Will Sue The Group ExTwitter ‘Excitedly’ Joined Just Last Week

Elon Musk’s ExTwitter just set a new speed record: from enthusiastic joiner of an advertising coalition to potential plaintiff against the same organization in just over a week. Sometimes, ti…

www.techdirt.com

 

[lawgator1]

This lawsuit is kind of insane territory. Elon Musk is so in favor of speech that he wants the government courts to force others to pay to speak on his platform.

LOL, well put!!

This all reminds me of how poorly people understand the First Amendment, and at many levels. It does not force private citizens or companies to advertise on your platform. That would be for starters.

 

[MercyPercy]

Musk mad no one wants to advertise on his ****** site. You hate to see it

 

[just bob]

And that includes not advertising on websites where your ads might show up next to controversial content, disinformation, or just general nonsense. Many companies recognize that it is bad for business to have advertisements showing up next to disinformation.

That's my favorite part. All of this was 1,000,000 times worse before Musk took over. lmao. Just more extreme leftist lies.

 

[CobbVol]

Shapiro explains the landscape the left developed:

 

[C-south]

LOL, well put!!

This all reminds me of how poorly people understand the First Amendment, and at many levels. It does not force private citizens or companies to advertise on your platform. That would be for starters.

You clowns would like to prosecute people for saying things you deem as “hate speech” or “misinformation”. Gtfo of here.

 

[hog88]

So when you allow Nazi ****tards to post next to your corporate brand ad, what you think gonna happen gramps.

You gonna advertise your trucking company next to Nazi ads?

Fun fact: Many brands have halted their paid advertising on the platform, leading to a monthly U.S. ad revenue drop of at least 55% year-over-year since Musk took over.

It's perfectly fine for a company to pull advertising from a platform for whatever reason they want, it's not fine when a trade group, association or other collective of companies collude together.

 

[lawgator1]

It's perfectly fine for a company to pull advertising from a platform for whatever reason they want, it's not fine when a trade group, association or other collective of companies collude together.

Why not?

 

[C-south]

Why not?

How long did you and your other “independents” cry about Russian memes?

 

[hog88]

Why not?

Once they put pressure on others within that group it's running close to violating the anti-trust laws.

Every year I go to a trade association meeting and it always opens up with a seminar on anti-trust laws and what can't happen at this meeting. If those emails exist where the head of GARM is pressuring members to withdraw advertising X probably has a case. But I'm not a lawyer so I guess we'll see what happens.

 

[CobbVol]

So when you allow Nazi to post next to your corporate brand ad, what you think gonna happen gramps.

You gonna advertise your trucking company next to Nazi ads?

Fun fact: Many brands have halted their paid advertising on the platform, leading to a monthly U.S. ad revenue drop of at least 55% year-over-year since Musk took over.

That is exactly what the lying media matters did to X. Thankfully they were sued by X and the state of Texas.