In a sane world, this lawsuit would be laughed out of court.
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2025
717 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
61456 readers
6382 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's harder to laugh it out of court when the plaintiff is in the government himself.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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-x
EU warning against advertising on X
… and Musk supporting anti-EU parties.
The 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 their ~~recommendation~~ warning 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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Nazi vs Nestle. Always win for us.
let them fight.jpg
Suing companies for not advertising on a platform For Nazis, By Nazis™. 🤡
It's a Good Thing Elon doesn't Own the DOJ!
Yes, sue literally every company in America, nothing could possibly go wrong.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Are boycotts illegal? In this case I doubt there was an organized attempt, just some companies making individual business decisions. But even if Twitter can prove there was a boycott, is there a law against that?
Boycotts are absolutely legal, you are completely entitled to decide who you don't want to do business with. However, illegality is no longer required for the justice system to be weaponized against you, and President Musk just wants to make an example to others who might not want to do business with an actual Nazi.
Surely it's up to the advertisers to choose where who they pay money to use?
load more comments
(3 replies)
Throwing a temper tantrum because no-one wants to play with you. What a child!
No better way to get people who used to voluntarily give you money to give you more money than threatening them.
What about capital markets and the freedom to choose where to spend your money? Elmo can go get pegged by Trump.
How is this even a thing? Is a bank run considered collusion? If the platform no longer offers the audience I want to reach then I should be able to stop advertising on it. It just happens that the audience of may companies at once left the company. Who is even entertaining this lawsuit?