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

[anivia@feddit.org]

Not if there's fewer there to see ads

But you usually pay per click or impression, not a flat rate. So that alone shouldn't be a reason for them to stop advertising there

[tsesejuer@lemmy.world]

they just be war criming out here with no war. the devil doesn't need to partake in human wars

[tsesejuer@lemmy.world]

so a south African is suing a swiss company in American court? why just why is this theatrical bullshit allowed to go on so sick of this already times be changing too slowly we need the next phase already

[torfdot0@lemmy.world]

He would wish that he did. He hates his kids

[roofuskit@lemmy.world]

He built a compound for all his kids and baby mommas to live at. I'm sure he excluded his trans kid from that though.

[cilethesane@lemmy.ca]

And he's now President of the US so he gets to make the laws.

[surph_ninja@lemmy.world]

All people are like that. Our brains aren’t built to handle that kind of obscene wealth and power. It would break anyone, just as overindulging in any unhealthy activity.

The fix is to not let anyone accumulate that level of wealth.

[citizenkong@lemmy.world]

And he bought the position fair and square.

[squizzy@lemmy.world]

Its an american company suing an american subsidiary of a swiss company. It makes sense. You dont have to try very hard to find the ridiculousness in these people but this isnt it.

[angryrobot@lemmy.world]

Yea, in a sane justice system, that one tweet would rpget this case thrown out on day 1. In the world we now live in, I'm not so sure.

[glitterbomb@lemmy.world]

I'm kind of alright with them accumulating some level of wealth, if the result is that they get a little trophy, a little island, and all their money redistributed. Like, congrats you won, now fuck off and let someone else win too.

[jj4211@lemmy.world]

I think the attempted argument is anti-competitive collusion among all these companies. That GARM, fundamentally, is illegal as an anti-competitive initiative.

[absgeeknz@lemmy.nz]

Life goals, don't fuck up so bad that even Nestle wont work with you!

[rumba@lemmy.zip]

Free the Super Mario Brothers!

[drdeadcrash@programming.dev]

That's what we just tried (over the past century), when we gave an inch they took the whole god damn country. I don't think the compromise approach will ever work.

[mongostein@lemmy.ca]

Like Tom from MySpace. Dude sold it off and now lives a carefree life pursuing photography

[taewyth@jlai.lu]

"We're barely breaking even" mate, you're supposedly in the business of online services since the late 90s, you should know that they're generally "barely breaking even"

[billwashere@lemmy.world]

Thank you. This is exactly what kind of response I was looking for. I couldn’t find any logic in the argument at all. So essentially the organization is illegal. That at least makes some sense.

[runawayfixer@lemmy.world]

The eu commission warning was officially only aimed at their internal services, it wasn't a mandate that all organisations within the eu should stop advertising on x. Though it wouldn't surprise me if it comes to a total ban in the eu, X is already under investigation for disinformation.

[buffalox@lemmy.world]

it wasn’t a mandate

Yes it was "just" a warning for EU offices, But that's still pretty remarkable, and this warning is widely publicly known, and I bet companies take notice.
But the point was also, that it's not just GARM that had problems with how things are at Xitter, it's official from EU that it's not desirable to use Xitter anymore, based on much the same reasons GARM stated. For their recommendation warning to avoid advertising on Xitter.

So it's evidence that GARM didn't just make it up to harm Xitter. The same conclusions were reached elsewhere.

Though it wouldn’t surprise me if it comes to a total ban in the eu, X is already under investigation for disinformation.

We should absolutely do that, and introduce a special Tesla Tariff of 200%, due to unfair competition because the Tesla CEO is part of the government, and it is a blatantly conflict of interest for Musk to be there and be CEO of several companies at the same time.

Carter sold his beloved Peanut Farm exactly to avoid a conflict of interest, but the American politicians, the public and the media today don't give a shit about corruption. But it's still illegal in EU.