this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
405 points (95.5% liked)

Technology

59378 readers
3600 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 90 points 3 months ago (4 children)

This is hilarious.

Should every company, regardless of whether they’ve advertised on Twitter before, be federally mandated to spend a certain percentage of their advertising budget on Musk’s little shitshow?

What, exactly, is the solution he has in mind?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago

More government intervention in markets, because that's what Republicans stand f- oh wait, er....

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I remember when this was announced 2 years ago. Any update?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Former twitter is still shit.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (5 children)

I had to skim quite a few down the search results to find an article that described what it meant by suing for "illegal boycott" in more detail.

https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/elon-musk-x-sues-advertisers-garm-boycott-1236097110/

X’s lawsuit alleged that the advertisers’ “boycott” violated Section 1 the U.S.’s Sherman Act antitrust law, which broadly prohibits agreements among distinct actors that unreasonably restrain trade, “by withholding purchases of digital advertising from Twitter.”

“The conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators alleged herein is per se illegal, or, in the alternative, illegal under the Rule of Reason or ‘quick look’ analytical framework,” the X lawsuit said. “There are no procompetitive effects of the group boycott, which was not reasonably related to, or reasonably necessary for, any procompetitive objectives of the GARM Brand Safety Standards.”

The “unlawful conduct” alleged by X is the subject of “an active investigation” by the House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary, the lawsuit said. The committee’s interim report issued on July 10 concluded that, “The extent to which GARM has organized its trade association and coordinates actions that rob consumers of choices is likely illegal under the antitrust laws and threatens fundamental American freedoms. The information uncovered to date of WFA and GARM’s collusive conduct to demonetize disfavored content is alarming.”

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 77 points 3 months ago (2 children)

One of the most poignant comments I've seen on this is it's a ploy to draw attention from his PAC and other negative media

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Dunno how much attention it's gonna draw away from it when it inevitably comes out that his PAC funded the committee that turned over the "evidence" that's being used to prop up his court case.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

While I think it will have that effect, Musk isn't smart enough to have thought about it that deeply.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Elon Musk: Your honor these mean jerks won’t pay to advertise in my nazi bar and it hurts my feels.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Elon's temper tantrum..

[–] [email protected] 46 points 3 months ago

I hope exhibit A of the defences evidence is Elon telling them all to go fuck themselves.

[–] [email protected] 67 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

ETA: He really is a 13yo in a 53yo body.

[–] [email protected] 188 points 3 months ago (3 children)

You can sue people for choosing not to do business with you?

Musk is such a fucking baby. He has no basis for this. He made major changes to the site, including a complete rebrand, and advertisers left. That's the fucking free market, and he's gonna sue?

[–] [email protected] 88 points 3 months ago

Even funnier, he literally told advertisers to go fuck themselves lol. Now he goes whining back to Mommy for new rules for his little kingdom.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 3 months ago (1 children)

He can sue, but he won't win in any sane court.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No sane court? So it has a real chance of being decided by The Supreme Court...

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They'd never even hear it. To give this lawsuit any credibility, they'd have to effectively say that businesses spending/donating money is not free speech. Which would effectively be the opposite of Citizens United.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You think they give a shit about consistency?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago

All that matters is the sponsorship tier - will you be flying the judge out to a vacation? Buying their mother a house? The outcome is solely dependent on your investment in the court. Justice.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 3 months ago

You can't sue people for... making normal business decisions? You'd think Musk would understand that if he was a real businessman, LOL RIGHT he's not.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›