Elon Musk’s X just sued a nonprofit advertising group out of existence | CNN Business
www.cnn.com
A major ad industry group is shutting down, days after Elon Musk-owned X filed a lawsuit that claimed the group illegally conspired to boycott advertising on his platform.

The group, Global Alliance for Responsible Media, also known as GARM, is a voluntary ad-industry initiative run by the World Federation of Advertisers that aims to help brands avoid having their advertisements appear alongside illegal or harmful content. GARM confirmed it is still planning to defend itself in court.

The end of GARM marks a temporary victory for Musk and X CEO Linda Yaccarino, even though a judge hasn’t made a ruling yet.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    180·
    3 months ago

    Remember, if you advertise on a Musk property and then decide not to advertise there anymore, he’ll sue you.

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    100·
    3 months ago

    Meh. They disbanded because it wasn’t worth the trouble. Their members are still unlikely to advertise on X.

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      66·
      3 months ago

      Exactly this. It makes no material difference, and it’s more cost effective to dissolve the org and refashion than play biggest dick with a roid-raging billionaire on ketamine.

    • monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world
      9·
      3 months ago

      And the suit makes it even more unlikely for Twitter to get new advertisers. Why risk advertising on a platform where if you leave you will get sued?

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    86·
    3 months ago

    The end of GARM marks a temporary victory for Musk and X CEO Linda Yaccarino, even though a judge hasn’t made a ruling yet.

    Does it? Zero advertising dollars will be coming to x because of this, and its poisoning-the-well to any other companies that would even consider starting advertising with x for fear of retribution.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        24·
        3 months ago

        It isn’t though - this is an industry group that helped vet platforms… given how Musk responds to people pulling their advertisements from the platform this is probably actually counter productive… also the Streisand effect.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        6·
        3 months ago

        The actual message is to not create a single entity that could be sued like this. Businesses can still get the same information and make the same decisions. Suing companies directly because they won’t advertise on Twitter would itself be pointless and good for the lulz. But that’s Twitter’s next move. Will they hook us up? Popcorn is waiting.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        2·
        3 months ago

        I think that part of the problem for musk is that advertisers were paying attention to the findings and they may have influenced some to stop.

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      81·
      3 months ago

      I mean, it’d be equally crazy, if not more, to think businesses that intend to advertise there indefinitely would pass up on the opportunity to market to millions of (mostly) morons

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        3·
        3 months ago

        No idea. Last I checked it was a letter of the alphabet. Microsoft used the letter as part of a name for a game console, but they weren’t stupid enough to try to use a single letter for an entire name. Only a complete fucking moron would try to force some dumb shit like that onto the public.

        Maybe they are referring to the social media company Muskrat bought and is driving into the ground by making it a haven for fascists. But that company was called Twitter.

  • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
    46·
    3 months ago

    meanwhile next month, “The new group World Alliance for Responsible Media, also known as WARM, is a voluntary ad-industry initiative…”

    • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
      271·
      3 months ago

      I wouldn’t be surprised. Transfer the funds, dissolve the entity, so they don’t need to waste money fighting frivolous lawsuits and open up under a different entity.

      • Etterra@lemmy.world
        91·
        3 months ago

        Half of white Musky is moving to Texas is it the lawyers will let anybody with enough money do whatever the hell they want. I don’t think they have an anti-slap law at the state level either.

        • madasi@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          5·
          3 months ago

          You would be looking for the Texas Citizens Participation Act. That’s Texas’ Anti-SLAPP law. No idea how it holds up in comparison to other states’ though.

            • Zenjal@lemmy.world
              0·
              3 months ago

              Yarp, that’s what’s happenin to Coffezilla right now. Logan Paul is suin him for comments made in 2 videos an a tweet being critical of his refund plan for cryptozoo, or lack there of, and specifically did it in fed court to dodge the SLAPP it seems

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    20·
    3 months ago

    GARM used to warn advertisers when their ads were being displayed next to objectionable material. With the warning system gone, Advertisers should now revert to a fail-safe state and stop using Xitter entirely.

    Meanwhile, anyone still using Xitter should absolutely get in the habit of taking screenshots of ads next to heinous nazi bullshit, and then calling out the companies on why they support that kind of thing.

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    3 months ago

    nonprofit advertising group

    Watdafuq is a nonprofit advertising group? I’m assuming they weren’t just public service announcements…

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldOPM
      17·
      3 months ago

      Naw these things exist in every industry. At best, they coordinate compliance and best practices, but at worst they collude. It’s a non-profit association of for-profit companies.

    • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
      5·
      3 months ago

      Just a way to structure an organization so folks don’t have to pay taxes twice. You’d do the same to a lobbying organization.

    • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
      226·
      3 months ago

      No shit, non-profit? It’s a consortium of the world’s largest advertisers. You can hate Musk, and hate them at the same time. I would go so far as to say that’s the only reasonable view on the matter.

      • xantoxis@lemmy.world
        86·
        3 months ago

        The org’s mission was to tell advertisers when they’re advertising next to hate crimes. You really don’t want advertisers to make money from ads next to hate crimes, because that incentivizes people posting nazi shit on social media. And this org would prevent that. It’s not a bad thing.

        Its disappearance won’t really matter much because it’s a paper fiction anyway, and there’ll be another one.

        • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
          7·
          3 months ago

          And Musk has even managed to do a couple of worthwhile things in his life as well. I don’t see why that means I should disregard every other terrible thing he has done, and will do.

          Because that is your argument. That these gigantic advertising entities, who would destroy the world if it meant an extra 0.5% in their net revenue, are doing the world of service and we should be grateful for it.

          I am not, fuck them. I hope all their key decision makers and Musk gather for settlement talks, and a meteor strikes square in the middle of the conference table.

          • klugerama@lemmy.world
            1·
            3 months ago

            Ok, fuck them. But shutting down this nonprofit organization doesn’t directly affect their bottom line. It may eventually have an indirect effect.

            My point is that by shutting down, the only obvious direct effect is that advertisements are now more likely to appear adjacent to bullshit hate propaganda. This doesn’t substantially hurt the advertisers in a large way - it hurts people more because it elevates the visibility of hate speech. Why would you think that’s good? This does absolutely fuck all to stop advertising or advertisers.

          • xantoxis@lemmy.world
            46·
            3 months ago

            No, you don’t understand.

            The advertising entities, who definitely suck ass, would be MUCH WORSE and so would EVERYTHING ELSE if there wasn’t someone telling them “don’t put ads next to nazis”. It’s called harm reduction dude.

            • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
              62·
              3 months ago

              No, I understand.

              Do you really think that if it wasn’t for their consortium, companies would think “you know what? I think we should run ads next to Nazis”.

              Hint: No. They wouldn’t.

              • xantoxis@lemmy.world
                22·
                3 months ago

                So let me get this straight: you hate ad companies and want to cast them all into the fire (a position I agree with, fwiw);

                but you also think they are ethical enough and competent enough to self-police running against nazi shit.

                What

              • FatCrab@lemmy.one
                35·
                3 months ago

                But they would end up running ads next to them more often. There are a lot of shitty industry groups. This is like the most banal, inoffensive one to get shitty about.

                • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
                  61·
                  3 months ago

                  I really think you’re missing the point here.

                  CNN is running a headline intentionally distorting the reality of what this group is. They’re making it sound like Musk destroyed the Humane Society.

                  They want people to feel pity for the world’s largest advertisers, or feel angry that Musk managed to slightly inconvenience them.

                  If you want to have a debate on the merits, you can’t have it in an environment like that.