• DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Conservatives are hypocrites and morons.

      But, hey, if he wants to argue that money isn’t expression and corporations don’t have freedom of speech I won’t try to stop him accidentally overturning Citizens United.

      Even if he wins, that still wouldn’t even work, the fucking lemon, you can’t force people to buy your products.

  • hddsx@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Just like you exercised your free speech to give Trump’s PAC a gratuity of $45 million, advertisers exercised their free speech by not spending it on twitter.

    Aren’t you a free speech absolutist? Why are you trying to force advertisers to exercise their free speech on your platform?

      • hddsx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, he doesn’t care about free speech. He just wants to be able to say whatever he wants without consequences because he knows he’s an asswipe

  • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    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?

      • seaQueue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

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

      • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        It would make an interesting precedent. Bud Light can then sue over the boycott with the whole LGBTQ thing because some didn’t buy their beer. Celebrities being cancelled can try to sue magazines for not running their articles or ads. It’s going to be such an unholy mess.

    • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

            • solomon42069@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

  • Vanth@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/elon-musk-x-sues-advertisers-garm-boycott-1236097110/

    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.”

    • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      But what would it even change? The businesses would no longer be able to make an explicit agreement, probably have to pay a fine, but can they be forced to advertise or will they just proceed to coincidentally all decide not to advertise without explicitly colluding?

    • weew@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      If Musk is part of that collusion, then is it still a conspiracy?

      He told them to fuck off, they fucked off.

      • Vanth@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I would think. And if that proof exists, it will come up at the appropriate time during legal proceedings. I’m skeptical there is any.

        I guess they could call the entire existence of GARM to be collusion; companies banding together to “punish” companies who don’t follow their guidelines. But X is (was?) a voluntary member of GARM, so it seems that would be a difficult argument for them to make without implicating themselves too.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    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?

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    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??

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I can’t wrap my head around the ridiculousness of it. Or grasp why some US political figures are lapping it up.

      Imagine McDonald’s suing you because you didn’t buy enough big macs this quarter.

    • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      You can in case of protected group discrimination sue the business, but suing customers is something new.

    • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      To quote Legal Eagle on Nebula: it depends. Suppose that the customers had a deal with Twitter granting them special pricing, but on the condition that they spend a certain amount during a given period. Then the customers could be breaching the terms of the contract by dropping out halfway through. I’m not saying that’s what’s happening here, and IANAL of course, but it seems plausible to me.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        So what you are thinking is all the media outlets are so shit they didn’t read the case and none of them found it saying, breach of contract. Could be true with how a lot of reporting goes these days, but why would the lawyers for X have not just said, this suit is about breach of contract, not conspiracy to boycott a poor billionaire’s company he is embezzling money to through Tesla?

        • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I haven’t read the case either. But what I do know is the news media isn’t always as nuanced in their reporting of court cases, as the cases warrants.

          If that is the case here I don’t know. Musk is a POS, so everything is definitely possible. All I’m saying is that if it actually is a breach of contract, then Musk could have a case.

          But imagine signing a contract, where you have to buy a set amount of advertising, with no clause about the site’s conduct and reputation.

  • Altomes@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

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

      • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Don’t underestimate him. He’s shown he’s a spoiled brat, but he’s not shown that he’s incapable of elaborate and spiteful plots to get his way.

        A smart decision in his eyes might be a dumb one in ours but that doesn’t mean he’s actually stupid.

        Writing him off as an idiot is a one way ticket to being blindsided while you’re distracted by something else.

        • pikmeir@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          But I do think he’s an idiot. There’s nothing to suggest he is intelligent beyond the average person, and many decisions he’s made that suggest he’s less intelligent.

    • Hellinabucket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • DxK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

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