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

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

let them fight.jpg

[email protected]

tHe mArKeT WiLl ReGuLaTe ItSeLf!

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

"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!"

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

wtf is musk even expecting to gain here

[email protected]

If he does, they will lose ALL advertising

[email protected]

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?

[email protected]

I love this song

[email protected]

No, the case is that advertisers used a service 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 trying to make 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

[email protected]

What about capital markets and the freedom to choose where to spend your money? Elmo can go get pegged by Trump.

[email protected]

Musk is not just supporting Nazis, is a flaming Nazi himself.

agnos.is Forums

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