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

[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.

[valmond@lemmy.world]

Yeah like x = y, not generic at all Also it won't censor "bla bla x."

[rayyy@lemmy.world]

Hey, when you're rich you can grab them by the balls.

[alphabethunter@lemmy.world]

That has always been the essence of the "Free Market", for thee but not for me.

[red_october@lemmy.world]

Boycotts are absolutely legal, you are completely entitled to decide who you don't want to do business with. However, illegality is no longer required for the justice system to be weaponized against you, and President Musk just wants to make an example to others who might not want to do business with an actual Nazi.