YouTube 10 years ago: we’re becoming as straight-edged as possible to keep advertisers around
Twitter now: Fuck you (wait we needed you)
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2069436850145993
50 States, 50 Protests, 1day
Feb 5 @ your downtown.
The irony of using one fascist billionaires platform to organize against another fascist billionaire and his platform, but also the government.
Can you screenshot that or something. I can’t see it without the Facebook account I refuse to have.
I can’t see it either. I’m not on Facebook. Someone found more details by googling it.
Organizing on Facebook? Wtaf.
facebook
That’s a no from me dawg.
Can someone explain to me how you can sue over a business choosing to not spend their advertising dollars on a particular service? I mean Elon specifically told his customers to “fuck off” and now he’s suing them?!? I just don’t understand these petulant little man children being so litigious when they get their feefees hurt.
Here’s the claim from the article:
The complaint alleges that the WFA “organized an advertiser boycott of Twitter through GARM, with the goal of coercing Twitter to comply with the GARM Brand Safety Standards to the satisfaction of GARM.” And it claims that these efforts succeeded in harming Twitter/X, with “at least” 18 GARM-affiliated advertisers stopping their purchase of ads on Twitter between November and December 2022, and other advertisers “substantially” reducing their spending.
Sure thing! I found an article that explains it better than I could:
Oh man. I wish OP would have posted this first.
Easy, you pack courts with shills, you eliminate government oversight, and then you do whatever you want.
I hate this timeline so much.
Maybe it’ll turn around after the Bell protests
You mean the Bell Riots that started September 1, 2024? I’m not sure how to tell you this, but that didn’t happen on schedule.
The actual “easy” part is that you can sue anyone for pretty much anything. Suing is entirely different from winning the case.
Why they think they have a chance of winning is the weirder question, especially when Musk publically told the advertisers to go fuck themselves.
Don’t have to win, just drag the case out, causing both sides to spend fortunes on legal fees. Guess who has the most money.
X has an estimated market cap of $9.4 billion, whereas Nestlé has a market cap of $219 billion. That’s a corporate superpower with no qualms about monopolizing freshwater or bait- & switching breast milk formula from babies. And it’s just one of the companies they’re taking on, with a shitty case to boot. So yeah… if I was Elon I would keep my head down.
Paying a couple of five or six figure sums to continue advertising on X, versus paying millions to fight a protracted legal battle - I know which option the shareholders of those companies will be pushing for.
The object of the lawsuit is to get these deep pocketed corporations to settle for millions. If the companies aren’t able to get the suits dismissed, they will settle. They don’t want to get on the wrong side of the current administration and it’s less costly than a years long legal battle.
It’s also a strong signal to future boycotters.
You can sue for anything.
Instead of someone explaining, you could always read the article linked and see for yourself.
I did read the article.
For example how does this:
In fact, the lawsuit claims that ad prices on X “remain well below those charged by X’s closest competitors in the social media advertising market,” so “by refraining from purchasing advertising from X, boycotting advertisers are forgoing a valuable opportunity to purchase low-priced advertising inventory on a platform with brand safety that meets or exceeds industry standards.”
force someone or some company to spend their advertising dollars there. If a company spending ad money doesn’t like what the ad service represents, in this case Elon is a douchebag and we’ll just ignore the fact that he gave a Nazi salute at the inauguration, than they aren’t required to use them as a service, illegal boycott or not, which I don’t even believe is a thing.
Here’s a hyperbolic argument. Let’s just say for example we have two grocery stores. One promotes pedophilia and the other does not. The pedo grocery store has prices that are let’s say half of what the other grocery store is, because I don’t know fucking kids makes you feel generous. A bunch of people get together and decide they don’t wanna shop at NAMBLAmart. Is NAMBLAmart allow to sue me because I didn’t shop there?
Because unless I’m missing something, that’s pretty much the argument.
I think the attempted argument is anti-competitive collusion among all these companies. That GARM, fundamentally, is illegal as an anti-competitive initiative.
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.
Edit: I mean I still think it’s bullshit but I can understand the argument now.
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
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.
deleted by creator
Throwing a temper tantrum because no-one wants to play with you. What a child!
You know you’ve fucked up when even Nestlé doesn’t want to work with you…
Obligatory Fuck Nesté
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.
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.
To be able extra clear, fuck twitter, fuck nestle and fuuuuuuuck Musk.
What an ugly fuck Elon is. Ewwww
I didn’t know Citizens United gave companies forced speech.
The speech is free. Xitter could advertise for these companies for free. It’s the money that’s being forced…
Oh wait I forgot money is speech. It’s so hard to keep up with the state’s counter-reality.
All the defense has to do is play the clip of him openly telling advertisers not to advertise and he’ll get laughed out of court.
Most politicians are bought for less than a million. The guy has hundreds of billions. I imagine he can buy a few judges along the way.
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.
Unfortunately he sued in the North District of Texas, which is a maga kangaroo court
In an actual court? In Trumps america?
i wounder if he will actually get a court to order that every person in the world owes him money.
cause that seems to be what he is working towards.
Let me ask you this: how many ads have you run on Twitter? Does that strike you as fair?
If he does, they will lose ALL advertising
No, the case is that advertisers used an Ad Advisory Group called GARM, that monitored advertising platforms on their quality, like being family friendly and keeping things within the law. When they advised their customers that they could no longer vouch for X, many advertisers followed their guidance.
Obviously they are in their right to do so, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with the procedures that were followed, like it was NOT cartel or any other kind of shenanigans by the users of that service.
But Musk being a paranoid malignant narcissistic crybaby, saw it as a conspiracy directed against him personally. And the guy has more money than sense, so he is making a huge issue out of it.
Luckily USA is a nation of law, so he won’t get anywhere with that, just like he wouldn’t get away with calling people pedophiles for no other reason than to offend them. Thank god USA isn’t corrupt as hell, so we can trust the courts to do the right thing. /s
On the other hand we also have EU warning against advertising on X:
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/11/17/eu-commission-advises-services-to-stop-advertising-on-elon-musks-xThe 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.
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 theirrecommendationwarning 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.
Jimmy 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.
EU warning against advertising on X
… and Musk supporting anti-EU parties.
How dare your company not advertise on my company cause I’m a racist wanna be nazi twat.
Link without the trackers attached to it: https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/01/x-expands-lawsuit-over-advertiser-boycott-to-include-lego-nestle-pinterest-and-others/
“I ruined my business by supporting Nazis and it’s all your fault!”
“I’m in a government that condones - if not encourages - businesses from rejecting customers based on their own ideology, but don’t do it to me!”
Musk is not just supporting Nazis, he is a flaming Nazi himself.
Yes but this all happened before he even went full mask off.
Yes it absolutely did, but the platform was not run responsibly, and contained hate speech. Musk even claimed the Nazi content besides adverts was a rare fluke.
Which is obvious today is not true. What Musk may really want, is to normalize Nazi content.
I’m honestly blown away that Nestle stopped or reduced advertising. It seems like twitter is exactly the home for such a terrible company.
Not if there’s fewer there to see ads. They’re still a business with a bottom line, even if what they do is terrible.
Yea, fair point.
Less of a boycott and more of a logical business decision.
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
The company might be terrible, but most of their buyers are normal people who either don’t know what brands belong to them, or don’t care enough to carefully investigate everything they buy. And those normal people are the ones the ads need to reach. If they leave twitter, what’s the point of advertising there?
Yea, I think it makes sense for them to stop if they are getting a return on their investment.
Nestle has an extremely safe, risk-averse marketing strategy. In part due to their various scandals, they try really hard to be family friendly and boring.
That said, they are not worse than other food and beverage conglomerates.
-
child labor: mars & others were also implicated. These companies were most likely unaware of the child labor being used to harvest cocoa. The way it works is there are wholesalers in Africa who buy cocoa from processing facilities who buy fresh cocoa pods from local farms. These wholesalers advertised themselves as being child-labor-free. The farms they buy from were using child labor. This is a problem with capitalism exploiting people in the global south, causing perverse incentives, and with companies having limited insight into the full depth of their supply chains.
-
water is not a human right: The nestle water exec said the quiet part out loud. But, no beverage company believes water is a human right - they just aren’t stupid enough to say that on camera. If they did think it was a human right, they’d be working to ensure universal access to clean water rather than bottling it and shipping it around the world while limiting water access at their extraction points and polluting the water near their factories. Look at what coca cola is doing in mexico - rampant water pollution such that in factory towns Coke is the only safe drink for folks because the water is contaminated. Nestle is bad, but no worse than coca cola.
-
infant formula scandal: this occurred in the 1970s and was obviously awful. Every major multinational food and beverage conglomerate has stories like this if you look hard enough - this just happens to be a fucked up series of events that got some major media play.
People online scapegoat Nestle, but continue to buy electronics and clothing made with child labor, tree nuts/soda/and other products known to be harmful to watersheds, and many other products from companies which harm people in the global south. This isn’t meant to defend nestle, but to remind everyone that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Nestle is not anywhere close to an uniquely evil company. Not even in its own industry.
Thank you for putting it into perspective a little bit. I still won’t buy Nestlé stuff but at least now I’ll feel guilty buying anything else lol
Water is a human right. Quoth Article 11, (1) ICESCR:
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
“food” here can be safely assumed to include “water”. “Everyone” means “also people who can’t afford shoelaces”. There’s exactly one country in the world which didn’t ratify the ICESCR and it’s the US.
Regarding “uniquely evil”: Yeah I’m definitely boycotting Chiquita (United Fruit) and Bacardi harder, both are still, effectively, whining about having their slave plantations expropriated. Both aren’t exactly hard to do their bananas are more expensive than no-brand organic ones over here, and Bacardi, well there’s plenty of good rum, Bacardi ain’t one of them. If you ever make a Cuba Libre with Bacardi I shall explode into tirades.
Oh of course I agree. That’s just what the nestle asshole said.
That’s good. Boycotts can be effective!
-
Last year he told everybody to go fuck themselves. Now he’s crying. If there is somebody who needs to be deported, is it his narcistic, selfish, apartheid’s ass.
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.
