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

[eestileib@sh.itjust.works]

Organizing on Facebook? Wtaf.

[thr0w4w4y2@sh.itjust.works]

Paying a couple of five or six figure sums to continue advertising on X, versus paying millions to fight a protracted legal battle - I know which option the shareholders of those companies will be pushing for.

[jimmycakes@lemmy.world]

This donkey about to get taught a lesson by nestle. He probably thinks he's hot shit now but he poked the devil.

[star@sh.itjust.works]

Instead of someone explaining, you could always read the article linked and see for yourself.

[satans_methpipe@lemmy.world]

Sure thing! I found an article that explains it better than I could:

[baggachipz@sh.itjust.works]

let them fight.jpg

[ourkaos@lemmy.today]

tHe mArKeT WiLl ReGuLaTe ItSeLf!

[roofuskit@lemmy.world]

I'm surprised they haven't killed his children already.

[roofuskit@lemmy.world]

"I ruined my business by supporting Nazis and it's all your fault!"

[unclegrandpa@lemmy.world]

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.

[pastermil@sh.itjust.works]

They needn't to do so. His children are dead to him.

[tempermentalanomaly@lemmy.world]

Oh man. I wish OP would have posted this first.

[tempermentalanomaly@lemmy.world]

Here's the claim from the article:

The complaint alleges that the WFA “organized an advertiser boycott of Twitter through GARM, with the goal of coercing Twitter to comply with the GARM Brand Safety Standards to the satisfaction of GARM.” And it claims that these efforts succeeded in harming Twitter/X, with “at least” 18 GARM-affiliated advertisers stopping their purchase of ads on Twitter between November and December 2022, and other advertisers “substantially” reducing their spending.

[billwashere@lemmy.world]

I did read the article.

For example how does this:

In fact, the lawsuit claims that ad prices on X “remain well below those charged by X’s closest competitors in the social media advertising market,” so “by refraining from purchasing advertising from X, boycotting advertisers are forgoing a valuable opportunity to purchase low-priced advertising inventory on a platform with brand safety that meets or exceeds industry standards.”

force someone or some company to spend their advertising dollars there. If a company spending ad money doesn’t like what the ad service represents, in this case Elon is a douchebag and we’ll just ignore the fact that he gave a Nazi salute at the inauguration, than they aren’t required to use them as a service, illegal boycott or not, which I don’t even believe is a thing.

Here’s a hyperbolic argument. Let’s just say for example we have two grocery stores. One promotes pedophilia and the other does not. The pedo grocery store has prices that are let’s say half of what the other grocery store is, because I don’t know fucking kids makes you feel generous. A bunch of people get together and decide they don’t wanna shop at NAMBLAmart. Is NAMBLAmart allow to sue me because I didn’t shop there?

Because unless I’m missing something, that’s pretty much the argument.

[sirquacktheduck@lemmy.world]

"I'm in a government that condones - if not encourages - businesses from rejecting customers based on their own ideology, but don't do it to me!"

[resetbypeer@lemmy.world]

Last year he told everybody to go fuck themselves. Now he's crying. If there is somebody who needs to be deported, is it his narcistic, selfish, apartheid's ass.

[cypher@lemmy.world]

FYI a vasectomy isn’t a 100% guarantee against getting a woman pregnant as it can sometimes heal, even years after.

A DNA test should still have been ordered in that circumstance.

[umbrella@lemmy.ml]

wtf is musk even expecting to gain here

[misterd@lemmy.ca]

If he does, they will lose ALL advertising

[chip_rat@lemmy.world]

I mean he's being bukaked with publicity.... So if that's his thing?

What I'd like to know, assuming there is still logic and sanity in this world (please it's all I have don't argue) how would a company from this list have avoided this in the first place? Like once you start advertising with a partner like X then you may never stop? Seriously I'm not sure. So maybe just never risk doing business with anyone because you'll be sued into staying in business with them forever? I'm certain it's right in their contracts how and when they can leave, is that in dispute?