After the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary released a report accusing the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) of colluding with companies to censor conservative voices online, Elon Musk chimed in. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Musk wrote that X “has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators” behind an advertiser boycott on his platform.

“Hopefully, some states will consider criminal prosecution,” Musk wrote, leading several X users to suggest that Musk wants it to be illegal for brands to refuse to advertise on X.

Among other allegations, Congress’ report claimed that GARM—which is part of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), whose members “represent roughly 90 percent of global advertising spend, or almost one trillion dollars annually”—directed advertisers to boycott Twitter shortly after Musk took over the platform.

Twitter/X’s revenue tanked after Musk’s takeover, with Bloomberg reporting last month that X lost almost 40 percent of revenue in the first six months of 2023 compared to the same period in 2022. That’s worse than prior estimates last May, which put Twitter’s loss around one-third of its total valuation. Ars chronicled the worst impacts of the ad boycott, including sharp drop-offs in the US, where an internal Twitter presentation leaked to The New York Times showed Twitter’s ad revenue was down by as much as 59 percent “for the five weeks from April 1 to the first week of May” in 2023.

Last year, Musk sued other “collaborators” in the X boycott, including hate speech researchers, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), and Media Matters for America (MMFA). However, his suit against the CCDH was dismissed this March, and Media Matters has claimed that Musk filing his MMFA lawsuit in Texas may be “fatal” because of a jurisdictional defect.

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

    I could have sworn I read that Musk was a free speech absolutist. Freedom for me but not for thee?

    • prime_number_314159@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      He only believes in the first 22 words of the first amendment. If you want to speak about what he has done, or (far worse) gather with others that share your beliefs to speak extra loud… straight to jail.

    • sundray@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Musk wants freedom of speech for people. But his definition of “people” is very, very narrow.

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Their obsession with “freeze peach” has always been a facade to their true desire which is to censor opposing viewpoints and make their viewpoints the only form of acceptable speech.

      You’ll note that everything outside those bounds is “woke” and unacceptable

    • dactylotheca@suppo.fi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is the case with literally every conservative crowing about “free speech”. They want full freedom for themselves so that no matter what they say there can’t be any negative consequences or reactions, and everybody else can get fucked and die in an extermination camp

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

      I could of sworn I read that shit doesn’t actually stink, but the pile of emperic evidence has led me to believe otherwise.

  • e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    So that is why he is donating to the Trump campaign. Best to get in the list of people he wishes to be persecuted sooner than later. Apparently it’s first come first serve.

  • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    And now you know why he’s donating to the Trump campaign.

    Because with the shift of power with project 2025 he can actually do this.

  • Techpriest2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Let’s just start with deporting two illegal immigrants from South Africa and see how that feels first.

    The video shows Kimbal talking about Zip2, the company Elon founded in 1995, and the challenge of raising money in the 1990s. The two men were amazed that anyone would invest $3 million in their company.

    “In fact, when they did fund us, they realized that we were illegal immigrants,” Kimball says in the video.

    “Well, I mean…” Elon says.

    “Yes, we were,” Kimbal replies.

    “I’d say it was a gray area,” Elon insists as the crowd laughs.

    “We were illegal immigrants…” Kimbal says, continuing his story about how they were sleeping in an office when raising money from venture capitalists.

    -Milken Institute interview, May 2013>

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

      Dude literally told advertisers to go fuck themselves and is now like “well wait, I didn’t mean it like that” lmao

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    After the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary released a report accusing the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) of colluding with companies to censor conservative voices online, Elon Musk chimed in.

    There is no telling yet if Yaccarino’s seeming support of GARM may strain her relationship with Musk, who has parted ways with several X executives during his reign over content moderation conflicts.

    The Committee on the Judiciary reported that GARM may be violating the Sherman Act, which “makes unreasonable restraints of trade illegal,” including certain cases when “group boycotts and coordinated actions” harm consumers.

    This allegedly worked to “rob consumers of choices” and “is likely illegal under the antitrust laws,” in addition to threatening “fundamental American freedoms,” the committee’s report said.

    "GARM creates voluntary industry standards on brand safety and suitability which media sellers and ad tech companies can voluntarily adopt, adapt or reject.

    “In consultation with legal counsel, WFA maintains robust and effective compliance policies designed to enhance competition,” GARM told Ars.


    The original article contains 926 words, the summary contains 166 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

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

    What’s this? Another petty tyrant king demanding taxes from his serfs? These billionaires are fucked up in the head. They can’t just sit back, killing their livers, getting drunk and wasted on drugs on their yachts. No, they have to bend the world to their will at the expense of everyone else living in it. Even then, that isn’t enough.

  • skozzii@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Thank god this muppet wasn’t born in the US, or he would definetely be making a presidential run. Maybe he will just try and pull a Trump and disrespect the constitution and try and change rules to benefit himself personally.

  • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    TIL advertisement market is worth 1000 billion $.

    Assuming 2 billion people owning an internet capable device, that’s 500 $ per person.