• resetbypeer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 hours ago

    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.

  • ricketyrackets@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    29 minutes ago

    What about capital markets and the freedom to choose where to spend your money? Elmo can go get pegged by Trump.

    • Chip_Rat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I mean he’s being bukaked with publicity… So if that’s his thing?

      What I’d like to know, assuming there is still logic and sanity in this world (please it’s all I have don’t argue) how would a company from this list have avoided this in the first place? Like once you start advertising with a partner like X then you may never stop? Seriously I’m not sure. So maybe just never risk doing business with anyone because you’ll be sued into staying in business with them forever? I’m certain it’s right in their contracts how and when they can leave, is that in dispute?

  • UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 hours ago

    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.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      26 minutes ago

      No, the case is that advertisers used a 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.

      https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/ad-advisory-group-suspends-activity-following-legal-action-from-x/723785/

      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-x

    • SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 hours ago

      “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!”

  • Jimmycakes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    4 hours ago

    This donkey about to get taught a lesson by nestle. He probably thinks he’s hot shit now but he poked the devil.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 minutes ago

      Wuaahh wuaahh wuaahh.
      Musk will cry about this, about how he was so unfairly treated, from his cell in the insane asylum that I expect him to be in in about 10 years the way he has been getting worse for the past 10 years.

  • billwashere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

    • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Easy, you pack courts with shills, you eliminate government oversight, and then you do whatever you want.

      • vga@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        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.

        • ArtVandelay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          6 hours ago

          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.

          • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            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.

        • thr0w4w4y2
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          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.

        • explodicle
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Maybe it’ll turn around after the Bell protests

          • kryptonite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 hours ago

            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.

    • ehoff121@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.

    • Star
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Instead of someone explaining, you could always read the article linked and see for yourself.

      • billwashere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

  • rusticus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Hey Elmo, you told the advertisers to “go fuck yourself” in no uncertain terms, even repeating yourself for dramatic effect.

    Hey I’ve got an idea Elmo. Go fuck yourself.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I suppose after he gets done there he will come after people like me who have blocked every musk related business from my network.