- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
don’t stick your ad dollars in crazy
I’m sure this will make them change their minds and advertise on Twitter again. /s
I think this article might be looking at this wrong. Corporations play all kinds of shell games with organizations and lawyers and there are plenty of examples where corps duck responsibility by dissolving or sometimes even reorganizing these organizations.
Just because GARM has dissolved doesn’t mean this kind of movement is over… like at all. The article itself states several similar lawsuits that failed.
Yeah. You can’t sue GARM, because GARM is dead. You win! Pay no attention to the recently incorporated “GARM 2”.
One time in my industry, a small startup company in Israel caused around 4 million dollars in damage due to negligence in the U.S., Mexico and Honduras.
A month later that company was out of business. All their assets where purchased by another company. Conveniently the new owners were kids the old companies owners. The old owners where I hired on as “consultants”.
“Everyone can see that advertising on X is a treacherous business relationship for advertisers,”
Said the same yesterday. Imagine throwing money at X after all this.
Hey guys. I’m starting to suspect that this Elon Musk fella is not a very nice dude.
Just the snakes eating their own tail. Nonprofit doesn’t mean unbiased or non commercial goals. Whoever was funding them will just move on to another non profit.
He’s such a moron… why didn’t he just buy them?
Him and that Linda as his conniving lapdog.
deleted by creator
Nobody was conspiring, they just stopped advertising on a sinking ship.
deleted by creator
Sources?
Except I doubt the conspired. I find it far more likely that they all saw what Muskrat was doing and didn’t want to do business with him, because he’s an ass.
Also he told them to go fuck themselves, so yea.
deleted by creator
Nothing Musk does is ever right, but I guess a simp is gonna simp.
deleted by creator
I rather doubt that buyer boycotts are actually illegal (with the exception of the anti Israel boycotts).
deleted by creator
What monopoly? There are many platforms for ad placement. Boycotting one platform doesn’t make the rest of the market a monopoly.
deleted by creator
By your logic, any group that organizes a boycott of any company is guilty of creating a monopoly. That is not how monopolies work, and it is also not illegal. It is a normal function of a free market.
deleted by creator
A monopoly exists when there is only one seller of a product. A monopsony exists when there is only one buyer of a product.
I’m really not sure that the Sherman Antitrust Act regulates artificial monopsonies the same way it does with monopolies
deleted by creator
