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

#26
#26
hog88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactlly. This is the issue from my understanding. Twitter is asserting collusion which brings antitrust issues.
 
#27
#27
hog88 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Having actually worked for a trade association in DC for 5 years, I can tell you (drum roll please) you're once again wrong as it concerns the Twitter case.

A trade association is 100% free to make recommendations to its membership - particularly concerning - in this case- an advertising vehicle that promotes racism and potentially places its members in harms way.

There are plenty of things a TA can't do - price discussion is a biggie - but members pay for solid advice otherwise.

I'm happy to bet you on this case. You lose, I pick your new avatar. And vice versa.

Got enough balls to accept?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WallyBalls and BigOrangeMojo
#29
#29
MontyPython said:
Having actually worked for a trade association in DC for 5 years, I can tell you (drum roll please) you're once again wrong as it concerns the Twitter case.

A trade association is 100% free to make recommendations to its membership - particularly concerning - in this case- an advertising vehicle that promotes racism and potentially places its members in harms way.

There are plenty of things a TA can't do - price discussion is a biggie - but members pay for solid advice otherwise.

I'm happy to bet you on this case. You lose, I pick your new avatar. And vice versa.

Got enough balls to accept?
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with balls, I didn’t predict X would win. I said they might have a case.

And if you’re right on this it will be the first time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#30
#30
hog88 said:
Nothing to do with balls, I didn’t predict X would win. I said they might have a case.

And if you’re right on this it will be the first time.
Click to expand...
Liar.

You said:

"it's not fine when a trade group, association or other collective of companies collude together."

Translation: you stated Twitter will win. You're wrong.

Bet me?
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
MontyPython said:
Liar.

You said:

"it's not fine when a trade group, association or other collective of companies collude together."

Translation: you state Twitter will win. You're wrong.

Bet me or be the giant pussy you are.
Click to expand...

😂 Now in this particular case, I don’t know if what they did was a violation of antitrust laws or not and said so in another post. Now do you want to step away from the ledge and quit making yourself look stupid? I can posy more from the FTC that covers different collusion scenarios If I need to.

A firm's refusal to deal with any other person or company is lawful so long as the refusal is not the product of an anticompetitive agreement with other firms or part of a predatory or exclusionary strategy to acquire or maintain a monopoly. This principle was laid out by the Supreme Court more than 85 years ago:
Click to expand...

Refusal to Supply
 
#36
#36
This probably won't help his case



Moves to Texas because he hates regulation, then sues to try to force others to do business with him.
 
#38
#38
He's an expert engineer who made a fortune with electric vehicles. Somewhat unprecedented as to acquiring wealth. Legendary status.......but that doesn't make him an expert on anything else. He used his wealth to acquire Twitter, but the inexperience and lack of knowledge in this entirely different industry is catching up with him. That he is in a position where he thinks he needs to sue to survive, is hard evidence he got into something he really knew nothing about. If he was the guy, then he would have been proactive about running a model that didn't look adverse to advertisers.
 
#39
#39
I like a lot of what Elon has accomplished - especially SpaceX. Unfortunately, he's now become more of a ****-stirrer than anything. Just a strange dude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy
#42
#42
MontyPython said:
Having actually worked for a trade association in DC for 5 years, I can tell you (drum roll please) you're once again wrong as it concerns the Twitter case.

A trade association is 100% free to make recommendations to its membership - particularly concerning - in this case- an advertising vehicle that promotes racism and potentially places its members in harms way.

There are plenty of things a TA can't do - price discussion is a biggie - but members pay for solid advice otherwise.

I'm happy to bet you on this case. You lose, I pick your new avatar. And vice versa.

Got enough balls to accept?
Click to expand...
I think its just another case of lawyers ruining this nation.

I think its going to come down to if GARM was making recommendations like: we think the current direction of X could be harmful to your brand with the content they allow. you may want to reconsider advertising on that platform.

or if they were making threats to internal members like: If you keep advertising on X we will kick you out of GARM, or ensure you take a hit somewhere else from the membership. So leave X or else.

I haven't read the emails but the implication is it leans more towards coercion vs voluntary business decision.

I seriously doubt there is any explicit in those internal emails that would constitute a direct threat towards members to stop advertising on X; but willing to bet there is plenty implied wording. It will likely come down to which side has the better lawyers, and not if one side is actually in the right or the wrong.

the only thing that would be damning would be if X can prove GARM acted on some of those implied wording in the emails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#43
#43
MontyPython said:
Having actually worked for a trade association in DC for 5 years, I can tell you (drum roll please) you're once again wrong as it concerns the Twitter case.

A trade association is 100% free to make recommendations to its membership - particularly concerning - in this case- an advertising vehicle that promotes racism and potentially places its members in harms way.

There are plenty of things a TA can't do - price discussion is a biggie - but members pay for solid advice otherwise.

I'm happy to bet you on this case. You lose, I pick your new avatar. And vice versa.

Got enough balls to accept?
Click to expand...
Evidently this was filed in some podunk court in the backwater boonies of Texas because there is exactly 1 federal judge there - and he's a notorious political hack (Reed O'Connor - look him up). Expect a win for Musk there, only to have O'Connor b**ch-slapped on appeal, as he often is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#45
#45
hog88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

hog88 said:
Nothing to do with balls, I didn’t predict X would win. I said they might have a case.

And if you’re right on this it will be the first time.
Click to expand...

MontyPython said:
Liar.

You said:

"it's not fine when a trade group, association or other collective of companies collude together."

Translation: you stated Twitter will win. You're wrong.

Bet me?
Click to expand...

Yeah, no dog in this fight, but it is interesting to me that in order to contort Hog's initial comment that it is "not fine" into a "Twitter win", one would have to interpret the word "fine" to mean "legal", in other words, to understand Hog to have said, "it is not legal when a trade group....collude(s) together."

Making "legal" a synonym for "fine" is strange. To illustrate, let's play the game, as applied to Charlottesville:

Trump: "There were lots of [legal] people on both sides."
Anti-trumpers: "No person is illegal. So, umm, I guess we agree with you, Mr. President."

Charlottesville, done; national unity, achieved!

See? It doesn't really add value for a poster to take what another says and turn it in to something else. It diminishes the critic poster's voice and damages their credibility when they actually have a point worth considering. But I guess a politics forum would be a lot less interesting if posters couldn't prop up strawmen to then strike them down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85, McDad, MemphisVol77 and 1 other person
#46
#46
hog88 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t really know anything about anti-trust law but isn’t there a requirement that the collusion be an attempt to secure a monopoly? Do the emails support that?

Edit: nevermind. Thread seems to have missed a left turn at Albuquerque. 😂
 
#47
#47
LouderVol said:
I think its just another case of lawyers ruining this nation.

I think its going to come down to if GARM was making recommendations like: we think the current direction of X could be harmful to your brand with the content they allow. you may want to reconsider advertising on that platform.

or if they were making threats to internal members like: If you keep advertising on X we will kick you out of GARM, or ensure you take a hit somewhere else from the membership. So leave X or else.

I haven't read the emails but the implication is it leans more towards coercion vs voluntary business decision.

I seriously doubt there is any explicit in those internal emails that would constitute a direct threat towards members to stop advertising on X; but willing to bet there is plenty implied wording. It will likely come down to which side has the better lawyers, and not if one side is actually in the right or the wrong.

the only thing that would be damning would be if X can prove GARM acted on some of those implied wording in the emails.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

First, Twitter is losing massive amounts of money right now. Given the $44 billion that Elon overpaid for the company, its debt payments are reportedly over $1B/year. Last quarter, X only had $114 *million* in *revenue*.

So, this lawsuit really just looks like a Hail Mary attempt to literally save the company from insolvency.

Second, Elon's lawsuit apparently claims individual firms are obligated to do what their trade association tells them to do. Gonna go out on a limb and state that no legitimate company on this planet would enter such an agreement - it's laughable to suggest otherwise. Trade associations answer to their membership (companies), not the other way around.

In the grand scheme of things, I hope Twitter / X crashes and burns to a crisp... along with Elon's megalomaniac ego.

He may be a genius in many respects, but clearly he's a political noob. Mixing politics with business is plain stupid.

Equally amusing, given Elon is reportedly funding the Trump campaign to the tune of $25M+/month, I'm thinking he actually enjoys getting spanked.

"Here's $25 million, Donnie! SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!?!?"

th (26).jpg
 
Last edited:
#48
#48
gcbvol said:
I like a lot of what Elon has accomplished - especially SpaceX. Unfortunately, he's now become more of a ****-stirrer than anything. Just a strange dude.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't quite understand his change unless he plans to run for office because one of his biggest companies, Tesla, tends to lean heavily on left leaning consumers.

This is why companies need to stay out of politics.

I have a theory that his son going trans and becoming a woman is what is driving it as he seems very angry about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#49
#49
evillawyer said:
Evidently this was filed in some podunk court in the backwater boonies of Texas because there is exactly 1 federal judge there - and he's a notorious political hack (Reed O'Connor - look him up). Expect a win for Musk there, only to have O'Connor b**ch-slapped on appeal, as he often is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read that as well. Federal court cherry-picking is an amazing waste of time and resources.
 
#50
#50
MontyPython said:
Yeah, I read that as well. Federal court cherry-picking is an amazing waste of time and resources.
Click to expand...
It's free leverage for Musk. He can inflict a lot of pain (discovery, motion practice, etc) in the trial court, even if it's a BS case (assuming it survives a MTD - which it likely will with O'Connor).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top