Flying Squid@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 9 hours agoElon Musk Apparently Managed to Sue Unilever Into Advertising on X Againgizmodo.comexternal-linkmessage-square49fedilinkarrow-up1213arrow-down110cross-posted to: ethicalconsumerism
arrow-up1203arrow-down1external-linkElon Musk Apparently Managed to Sue Unilever Into Advertising on X Againgizmodo.comFlying Squid@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 9 hours agomessage-square49fedilinkcross-posted to: ethicalconsumerism
minus-squareoriginalucifer@moist.catsweat.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up77·8 hours agobut its unilever. they have nearly unlimited funds to fight musk… if they wanted to i suspect they just didnt want the unilever name and its bazillion brands brought into public lawsuits for marketing reasons
minus-squarePugJesus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13arrow-down1·8 hours agoOh, I know nothing about Unilever specifically, you may be right. In either case, the basic “Cost not worth the price” reasoning still applies.
minus-squarePugJesus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13·8 hours ago… a lot of those are repeated multiple times?
minus-squarecanlinkfedilinkarrow-up17·edit-27 hours agoI think it’s the continents the brands are Edit: actually “cif” is called “vim” in canada, so maybe there wasn’t that much thought put into it. Here’s a Wikipedia list instead.
minus-squareoriginalucifer@moist.catsweat.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up26·8 hours agoyou spelled ‘losing potential profits not worth fighting nazis’ wrong
minus-squarePugJesus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14·8 hours agoYeah, I mean, that’s the gist of it. Corporations are utterly amoral and value only profit, not things like “not helping genocide along” or “preventing fascism”.
minus-squareFlying Squid@lemmy.worldOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up12arrow-down2·8 hours agoSee my response to @Docus. They own half the brands in half the houses in the world.
but its unilever. they have nearly unlimited funds to fight musk… if they wanted to
i suspect they just didnt want the unilever name and its bazillion brands brought into public lawsuits for marketing reasons
Oh, I know nothing about Unilever specifically, you may be right. In either case, the basic “Cost not worth the price” reasoning still applies.
You probably know some of their brands
… a lot of those are repeated multiple times?
I think it’s the continents the brands are
Edit: actually “cif” is called “vim” in canada, so maybe there wasn’t that much thought put into it.
Here’s a Wikipedia list instead.
you spelled ‘losing potential profits not worth fighting nazis’ wrong
Yeah, I mean, that’s the gist of it. Corporations are utterly amoral and value only profit, not things like “not helping genocide along” or “preventing fascism”.
See my response to @Docus. They own half the brands in half the houses in the world.