X expands lawsuit over advertiser ‘boycott’ to include Lego, Nestlé, Pinterest, and others | TechCrunch

[barsoap@lemm.ee]

Plenty actually, like former slaves from plantations which sold products to Nestle.

...it's part of the reason why Nestle is currently lobbying the EU to not dilute the supply chain act, those kinds of cases are a PITA for them, and the documentation they need to do for the supply chain act is exactly what they need to nib cases in the bud, "Here's the inspections we did, here are transcripts of anonymous interviews with random workers at the plantation", "If something slipped between the cracks we deeply regret that but we did do our due diligence, plaintiff's beef is with their ex boss, not with us".

It is absolutely more expensive to pay an army of lawyers to defend yourself than it is to pay workers proper local wages and document that. Not to mention that people who run slave plantations don't share their extra profit with Nestle.

The other reason is that they don't want smaller companies to have a competitive advantage because they're not subject to those kinds of lawsuits.They're also not at all keen on a consumer boycott from Africa.

[jeebaichow@lemmy.world]

Tbf every body needs an asshole. Except the us, which seems to have two.

[aarrjaay@lemm.ee]

Throwing a temper tantrum because no-one wants to play with you. What a child!

[barsoap@lemm.ee]

Water is a human right:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.

"food" here can be safely assumed to include "water". "Everyone" means "also people who can't afford fidget spinners". There's exactly one country in the world which didn't ratify the ICESCR and it's the US.

[essteeyou@lemmy.world]

Key part of that sentence is "so far"

[scrollone@feddit.it]

It's harder to laugh it out of court when the plaintiff is in the government himself.

[halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world]

You just know that's going to be exhibit 1 for the defense.

Fucking fascist Nazi man baby doesn't like when advertisers do what he tells them, and then continues to do so when he realizes that was a bad idea.

[halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world]

Possibly, but none of those bought judges matter unless it ends up in their specific court. That's why they've been trying to install as many of their own as possible.

[positivewhat@lemmy.world]

There's gotta be serious repercussions for this insane narcissist-autocratic behaviour. USA you're not just embarrassing, but a liability.

[jeebaichow@lemmy.world]

Reminds me of the guy who was accused by his gf of impregnating her, then refusing to support the child. Went through everything: the lawyers, friends and family who questioned his manhood and unwilling ess to take responsibility for the child, harassment, threats from her friends, etc. finally ended up in court in front of a judge, where he calmly produced a letter from a doctor that had performed a vasectomy on him well before the child could possibly have been conceived, took the win and walked out.

I would pay to watch this rich spoilt man child have to eat his literal words. I'm sure it's screenshotted all over the internet, but his ego won't let him see the truth.

[bigdanishguy@sh.itjust.works]

When people go we may use child slaves in our supply chain, steal and ruin water supplies, and bribe medical professionals to get discourage breastfeeding, but you're too fucked up for us to work with then you know you've fucked up.

[simulation6@sopuli.xyz]

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?

[womble@lemmy.world]

To be clear, its not that twitter is too fucked up for nestle to work with, they absolutely would if they thought it would benefit them. Its that twitter has become so toxic that they see advertising there as a net negative.

[xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

a certain amount of business collusion can be considered a cartel (other kind) and essentially monopolistic… but that’s usually price fixing… i don’t see how they could be compelled to advertise on a nazi platform.
also, i respect these companies much more than any company that would, and consider this lawsuit great advertising
but then again, the right trump appointed federal judge makes meaning pointless in law…

[digdilem@lemmy.ml]

Surely it's up to the advertisers to choose where who they pay money to use?

[excessshiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

Yeah, I tend to believe it would be better to stop the entity that has currently done the most harm, with no intent to stop, first...I'm weird like that.

[valmond@lemmy.world]

Can you please tag this elon, so that our spam filters work?

It's not practical to censor "x"

[neonachtwaechter@lemmy.world]

when advertisers do what he tells them

They have actually ... themselves?

[stephen01king@lemmy.zip]

What about censoring " x ". That might help filter more posts.

[zergtoshi@lemmy.world]

This post would require "x " though.