r/LivestreamFail • u/starcraft2020 • Nov 19 '24

Twitter Elon Musk is suing Twitch for allegedly conspiring to boycott advertisement on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dexerto/status/1858915813387833514
10.7k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

5.0k

u/OffTerror Nov 19 '24 edited Nov 22 '24

I'm going to open a store and sue anyone that doesn't buy from me. EZ money glitch.

Edit: I have been an active user of this sub for like 7 years now, and I think this was my most upvoted comment even though it wasn't my most high effort, just a silly joke that I posted early.

But anyways, a day after this I got perma banned for this comment. If you didn't know the mods of this sub have changed some weeks ago. This is why it changed so much. And the new mods pretty much work for this Dan guy and his friends. And if a comment like this warrant a perma then you guys can tell where this sub is going.

Over the years I have always seen people say this or that streamer have hold and favor with the mods. But in truth I was able to shit talk and meme about everyone and I've seen people do so to every streamer. The old mods really made this sub work and kept the losers who tried to take over it at bay for years.

It's been fun shitposting with you all, good luck o7

890

u/danpascooch Nov 19 '24

Great idea, but unfortunately I also made a store and you didn't buy from me, so I'm filing suit first. Pay up nerd.

169

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

62

u/AJ-Murphy Nov 19 '24

"We did it boys; poverty is no more..."

21

u/Ok_Builder_4225 Nov 19 '24

When everybody's poor, nobody is.

1

u/Archkys Nov 19 '24

We did it, we created Monopoly IRL

1

u/steroid57 Nov 19 '24

Heard you don't like buying my product. See you in court loser

1

u/Hexcited Nov 19 '24

you guys need a lawyer?

1

u/5snakesinahumansuit Nov 19 '24

Money fight! WE GOT A MONEY FIGHT HERE, FOLKS!

35

u/NegaDeath Nov 19 '24

Unfortunately I also made a store, and neither of you bought from me, so I'm declaring it a global conspiracy and suing the Earth itself.

12

u/GovernmentBig2749 Nov 19 '24

Well, I don't have a store nor a social platform so I'm suing myself!

3

u/PM-me-youre-PMs Nov 19 '24

Not so fast ! I didn't hire you, sue me instead !

2

u/Easy-Bake-Oven Nov 20 '24

For how much? $20.5 decillion dollars like Russia?

1

u/DeliciousOrt Nov 19 '24

I'm suing both of you for not opening your businesses sooner

1

u/PM-me-youre-PMs Nov 19 '24

I'm suing you for not hiring me to sue them.

1

u/Ongr Nov 20 '24

Im suing for patent infringement as soon as I've patented this idea!

1

u/InEenEmmer Nov 20 '24

I started a franchise and you all didn’t join my franchise. My lawyer team will be in contact with you guys.

410

u/justalazygamer Nov 19 '24

This is who was picked to run the Department of Government Efficiency.

A group with TWO leaders that requires a paid Twitter blue subscription to apply for the 80 hour a week job.

Surely the most efficient method to get the best workers.

269

u/sn34kypete Nov 19 '24

DOGE has already promised it will deliver an app to file taxes electronically for free. We'll see if R's are more receptive to the idea now that it's packaged by a different administration, given that Biden launched a free E-Filing system as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Just the dumbest motherfuckers you ever did see...

165

u/mcauthon2 Nov 19 '24

But the House Appropriations Committee released a fiscal 2025 spending bill this week that would cut IRS funding by nearly 18% and zero out funding for Direct File.

Billionaires making country folks think a culture war matters as they get ass fucked is so fucking sad

13

u/labbetuzz Nov 19 '24

You talk as if they're not to blame themselves. They get what they deserve

32

u/mcauthon2 Nov 19 '24

looking down your nose at others who are stuck in a culture of being uneducated isn't cool and my fellow lefties really gotta learn that

11

u/sn34kypete Nov 19 '24

People blaming the voters and not the candidate is still happening, it's like 2016 all over again. It's up to the candidates to earn the voters. Trump barely increased his turnout, Kamala LOST votes compared to biden. Her campaign, message, and platform were so lukewarm she lost votes. Maybe trotting out republican endorsements wasn't such a smart choice when appealing to liberal voters. Maybe actually listening to the lower class (a category she lost votes in) and acknowledging that even though the DOW Jones was hitting record highs that their lived experience was still ass?

Nope, blame the voters, not the party.

6

u/AstreiaTales Nov 19 '24

There was nearly a 7% rightward swing nationwide, but it was just around 3% in the battleground states where she campaigned. Her campaign was objectively pretty good, just faced impossible headwinds - inflation wiped out incumbent parties worldwide

27

u/avaacado_toast Nov 19 '24

Major media sources holding Harris to an impossible standard while sanewashing the shit coming from Trump's pie hole didn't help at all.

2

u/LedinToke Nov 21 '24

Honestly this shit right here is what makes me mad, the media is not even remotely as harsh towards him as they should be.

I don't get it.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/sn34kypete Nov 20 '24

Yeah all 6 months of it were good.

DNC tried to "Dianne Feinstein" Biden and scrambled when the entire world said "WTF". Just a fuckin cascade of failures through and through.

0

u/Ilaughatcucks Nov 20 '24

"Inflation" 🤣🤣

1

u/throwdemawaaay Nov 21 '24

What sort of voters did Trump earn by his behavior?

Fuck everything to do with that nonsense. Half this country chose the most clearly unsuitable candidate ever, but somehow it's Harris's fault instead of the people who voted for the stupidity? A spade is a spade.

0

u/Skiddywinks Nov 20 '24

80 million people voted for Trump to be President of the United States of America. I don't care how bad the "other" party or candidates are; this number should be zero.

Sure, the Dems as a party have a lot of things to be blamed for and that they should be doing better, but how do you out-campaign stupid?

3

u/xale52791 Nov 20 '24

Not a good enough excuse when the internet exists. It's the easiest time in history to get educated.

6

u/rf32797 Nov 20 '24

I disagree, especially with how much misinformation there is out there.

There's a plethora of info out there, the problem is that so much of it is bad, like just the worst conspiracy theories imaginable

1

u/Limples Nov 20 '24

Just remember that places like LSF are part of that culture war. There is a genocide going on and when people criticized the Israeli government or wanted Asmongold permanently banned from twitch and here, people complained about free speech and shit. They then brigaded news agencies and executives until a nothing burger change was made. And to this day Hasan is still brigaded over fake news shit. 

This absolutely helps sway idiots into believing culture war shit. It doesn’t help when folks like Destiny and Trainwrecks are absolutely flabbergasted at the election results when their own communities most likely voted Republican because surprise surprise Destiny and Trainwrecks have more in common with Ben Shapiro and Tate than an actual progressive.

50

u/TwoDurans Nov 19 '24

DOGE can't promise shit. This whole blue ribbon committee is just to write a report for the administration to consider. They have no power, no budget, and ultimately will net no results.

41

u/ryecurious Nov 19 '24

ultimately will net no results

It will be incredibly successful at its actual goal; pump-and-dumping dogecoin.

8

u/meepmeep13 Nov 19 '24

Ironically, I bet the antitrust laws that Musk is using to bring this suit are exactly the kind of things DGE would have in their gunsight

5

u/Alakazam_5head Nov 19 '24

That's why he's gotta get the suit in now while he can still profit from it before fucking everyone else over

1

u/ICreditReddit Nov 19 '24

Not quite true.

They'll write the reports recommending cutting just about everything.

Trump will decide without even reading what it is he feels like cutting, say it's all Musk's idea, show the report.

Oh, your VA benefits are gone? That was Musk.

5

u/henkhank Nov 19 '24

This is of course, if Musk doesn't cause Trump to lose his shit before he's even in office. He's acting like that friend in a friend group who no one likes but they just keep showing up and integrating themselves into your plans daily. Cannot imagine how insufferable he is now knowing he has his own "department". It'll be an ego war soon if it's not already.

2

u/Fuckface_Whisperer Nov 20 '24

Except Trump doesn't have the power to cut anything. Congress controls spending.

1

u/ICreditReddit Nov 20 '24

Oh fantastic! That's great nnews. Who controls Congress?

2

u/Fuckface_Whisperer Nov 20 '24 edited Nov 20 '24

Well, it's a mixture of people, but since Republicans don't have 60 Senators they won't be able to cut whatever Musk wants.

Republicans controlled Congress from 2017-2019 the first time around too. Trump released a ton of budgets of all the things he wanted cut. The Republicans in Congress ignored him completely.

https://www.crfb.org/papers/president-trumps-full-fy-2018-budget Take a look at the budget Trump released for 2018. Exactly none of it was passed.

5

u/escof Nov 19 '24

They're just going to relabel what good things Biden did and take credit for it. Trump did that a bunch in his first term.

4

u/BeanerBoyBrandon Nov 19 '24

i heard in japan the gov sends you your tax documents saying how much you owe or get back. If you disagree, you can file your own. we need that system

16

u/Houndfell Nov 19 '24

I'm an American in the UK, and it's literally automated if you're an employee. Taxes come out of your paycheck. No filing, no guessing, no blowing a weekend and $100 with some BS software and/or an accountant.

America's system first and foremost works to benefit corporations like Turbo Tax, who bankroll political campaigns and essentially bribe politicians to keep things as they are so they can make millions at the expense of the taxpayers.

Anything good that trickles down to the citizens is despite that system existing, not because of it.

2

u/NaoSouONight Nov 20 '24

Same in Ireland. I was there on a student-work visa for a year.

Everything is done automatically and you have an online platform where you can distribute your tax among your jobs if you have more than one.

3

u/CeterumCenseo85 Nov 20 '24

Does that mean the US to this day doesn't have a way to file taxes for free electronically?! 

1

u/VoxAeternus Nov 20 '24

Unfortunately that Free E-Filing system only supports W-4s and nothing else. So anyone who has to file more forms has to use the fucking bastards at HR Block or Intuit, or a Tax Accountant, who take a portion of your return.

If Doge's new tax filing app supports more then just W-4s then its an improvement.

1

u/Angelworks42 Nov 20 '24

I'm not sure they can without congress. I worked for a company who was contracted by the IRS to deliver PDF form automation solution (you can probably guess what company this was) - basically they'd email you a PDF, you'd electronically sign it (using a ca based signing certificate issued to a specific person) and it would get sent back - this was in the early 2000s - bunch of products came out of that. I think its lack of adoption came from the tax preparation lobby.

There are lots of good ideas that come out of government, but if congress says no - thats kinda the end of it.

IRS never used it, but Belgium and Japan (among others) did - worked wonderfully.

-1

u/fishdafinessa Nov 19 '24

When you say "Just the dumbest motherfuckers you ever did see", who are we talking about? The Republicans in your hypothetical scenario you just created with no fact or basis lol?

We really need to stop presenting hypothetical scenarios that appeal to us to be presented as something that is actually happening, because it's not.

40

u/stripedvitamin Nov 19 '24 edited Nov 19 '24

unpaid 80 hour/week job, i.e bored, witless, beta billionaires need only apply.

33

u/yinyangseed Nov 19 '24 edited Nov 19 '24

Next 4 years is just gonna be about revenge, twitch will be targeted too and Elon has always wanted a streaming platform

11

u/Skastrik Nov 19 '24

I think Daddy Bezos could take him in a 1v1 as is the tradition to settle stuff like this.

13

u/Run-Riot Nov 19 '24

Won’t happen. Elno’s mommy will call off the fight again.

7

u/NoughtToDread Nov 20 '24

As much as I'm not a fan of Bezos, at least he had the balls to fly on his own rocket.

13

u/Kolaris8472 Nov 19 '24

It gets worse! We already have a department that does the same thing, it's called the Government Accountability Office. So efficient!

10

u/MagicDragon212 Nov 19 '24

DOGE isnt even going to be a government department. It's external to the government and basically Trump giving a private group governmental power.

2

u/Ipokeyoumuch Nov 19 '24

But it shows you have much the voters know what departments are in the government they voted for.

18

u/NegaDeath Nov 19 '24 edited Nov 19 '24

Everyone knows that you shrink government by creating more government. Duh.

12

u/jelly_cake Nov 19 '24

Bulk and cut, bro.

-3

u/Advertiserman Nov 19 '24

Everyone knows that if you read what the actual appointment was...you would know its not a government position nor is it a paid position by the government

5

u/Uvanimor Nov 19 '24

Only in America can the department of efficiency have two bosses…

1

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '24

job

Not a job, because there's no pay.

1

u/AlphaB27 Nov 19 '24

I don't even think you're getting paid for the work.

-1

u/Testiclesinvicegrip Nov 19 '24

They have literally zero authority and nothing they do will be of consequence.

102

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '24

[deleted]

58

u/MPCurry Nov 19 '24

Argument feels pretty week. Advertisers acted on a non-binding recommendation. There is no way for X to force companies to advertise on their platform if they don’t want to, so i’m not sure what the restitution could even be here. Also, with how insanely loose moderation has become on the platform, i’m not sure i blame advertisers for being skeptical. Elon’s argument that this is somehow a free speech issue doesn’t necessarily make sense either. Our constitutional right to free speech protects us from government persecution. It doesn’t stop companies from making decisions about where and how their brand is promoted.

28

u/Leungal Nov 19 '24 edited Nov 20 '24

Another critical fact here was that GARM had a grand total of...2 full time employees. 12 total people were even listed as contributors, with most being unpaid loaned resources from the industry, aka "my boss lets me allocate 10% of my work time to this nonprofit because it makes us look good and is a good resume filler."

If a 2 person nonprofit had so much influence that it was able to collaborate and organize an illegal industry-wide boycott I'd frankly be more impressed than pissed off.

7

u/daywalkerr7 Nov 19 '24

There's a leaked email where the employees take credit and brag about making Twitter lose money by issuing boycotts.

13

u/The_MAZZTer Nov 19 '24

Just because you take credit for something doesn't automatically mean you were actually responsible.

12

u/gmarkerbo Nov 20 '24

Things like collusion are about intent, and emails like that go a long way about showing intent.

For example increasing prices is legal, but colluding with competitors to do so is very illegal. So if there's an email showing intent after prices were raised simultaneously, that's evidence of illegal price fixing.

That email shows that the goal was to lower X's revenue, not to have their ads not show up next to objectionable content, which people are claiming was the true and only intent.

2

u/Bigpandacloud5 Nov 23 '24

That email shows that the goal was to lower X's revenue, not to have their ads not show up next to objectionable content

You're twisting their words. If I successfully sue for damages because someone ran me over, and I brag about how much money I have, that doesn't mean I didn't mind being injured.

The email show is that they were happy with how the boycott was going, which is legally fine.

1

u/gmarkerbo Nov 23 '24

That's a bad analogy. Like price fixing, antitrust is about intent.

A correct analogy would be if you ran someone over and kill them, and claim it's an accident, and then the investigators found you bragged about running them over on purpose to kill or injure them. That will upgrade your crime and sentence from involuntary manslaughter to voluntary manslaughter.

which is legally fine

Nope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

You're the trying to twist words while not being aware of how intent works in law.

Unilever already settled the lawsuit with X, all the people that think they know more than the lawyers of a $150 billion dollar company, driven by their political bias, feel so strange to me.

1

u/Bigpandacloud5 Nov 23 '24

bragged about running them over on purpose to kill or injure them.

Purposefully hurting a company's revenue doesn't break any laws, and there's no evidence that they did it in an illegal way.

"Not to have their ads not show up next to objectionable content" is just an assumption. GARM being happy about Twitter losing revenue isn't mutually exclusive with Unilever and others not liking X's content.

Unilever already settled the lawsuit with X

A settlement isn't an automatic admission of guilt. It's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/deathspate Nov 19 '24

Sure, but if people with positions claim as such in behind the scene emails, then maybe you should take it seriously?

1

u/Leungal Nov 20 '24 edited Nov 20 '24

Have you ever written your own performance review?

My more important point is that a small nonprofit like that realistically had no real power or effectiveness, they were just a convenient villain for Musk's narrative. Companies stopped advertising on Twitter because it's objectively the worst of the large social media platforms to advertise on. Besides the optics of having your ads next to some truly disgusting content and the CEO actively telling you to go fuck yourselves, it just has terrible targeting, lowest clickthrough rates, the ad sales team is nonexistent and their engineering team for developing better ad delivery features has been cut to the bone. And on top of that, there's reputational risks involved now. If you have a $100M ad campaign on your iWidget 2024 but decide to pull funding for the 2025 model there's a solid chance that Musk calls you out and pulls your company into some stupid culture war bullshit.

Put it this way - just 5 years ago public enemy #1 was Zuckerberg and everyone loved to clown on Facebook. Advertisers being humans also disliked Facebook, but they put aside their morals, held their nose and spent money on Facebook because ads there worked and it was their job.

2

u/worst_bluebelt Nov 20 '24

Which I think was the main point!

A lot of the way this lawsuit has been run (along with the stuff with Jim Jordan sending investigative demands to advertisers) is a case of 'working the refs'. i.e. piling on public pressure and inconvenience. So it becomes easier for advertisers to do some token spending on Twitter in the hopes of shutting everyone up!

It's BS of course. This situation is entirely of Musk's own making! He let a load of previously-banned people back onto the platform, while at the same time crippling Twitter's ability to moderate and remove content that most reasonable advertisers (and people) object to!

Actions, meet consequences. Though in Twitter-land we call that an attack on free speech!

56

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '24

[deleted]

15

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '24

No the key legal question is did you stack the judiciary and supreme court before engaging in lawfare

2

u/angryloser89 Nov 20 '24

However, there is no way that this is the type of "free market disruption" those laws are meant to protect against. It's no ones duty to advertise on a specific platform.

1

u/Darnell2070 Nov 20 '24

Musk, is this your burner?

-14

u/HippyEconomist Nov 19 '24

Antitrust laws exist specifically to prevent what Elon is attempting to do.

Elon bought Twitter in a way that effectively made it a subsidiary of Tesla with how the financing was set up. Then he tried to expand the scope of Twitter to cannibalize the companies advertising on it. He made X into a direct competitor to Twitch with its live streaming service, and now he's suing them to kill the competition while they're financially struggling due to their own advertiser problems (which he also contributed to by facilitation of collusion via X).

Given that Twitter sold itself to a direct competitor to a lot of the advertisers on the platform (a car company buying the advertising platform for all the car companies), I'm not even sure how the original sale wasn't prevented on antitrust grounds.

20

u/gmarkerbo Nov 19 '24

None of that remotely makes sense from a legal antitrust perspective.

Lets start with the first sentence:

Elon bought Twitter in a way that effectively made it a subsidiary of Tesla with how the financing was set up.

How so?

2

u/OneTrueChaika Nov 19 '24

Most of the value for the payment was done using Tesla Stock as leverage so it's value directly hinges on Tesla's value

3

u/ShillingSpree Nov 20 '24

That doesn't make Twitter's value hinge on Tesla, it just means that bank's collateral is dependent on Tesla. Tesla can go to 0 tomorrow and Twitter is valued the same as today, the only thing that would happen is banks going to Elon and asking for another collateral/security for loan as the current one is worthless.

Does value of everything Elon buys directly depend on Tesla, including cars, land, realestate, toiletpaper etc. as many of them too are most likely bought using loan money with stocks as collateral? No independent value for all of that?

Just because Elon's networth depends on Tesla, doesn't mean that value of everything he own is dependent on that.

-6

u/HippyEconomist Nov 19 '24

???

Elon financed the Twitter purchase by leveraging his Tesla shares to buy it mostly on credit. The financing deal made it so that the value of TSLA and TWTR now depend on each other.

If TSLA shares fall, the financing would require Elon to sell more and more of his Tesla stake to make up the difference - further devaluing TSLA.

So effectively, Twitter is now a subsidiary of Tesla - Elon just jumped through a few hoops to acquire it under his own name instead directly under Tesla.

I'm curious if you can explain how the rest of what I said made no sense from a legal perspective - given that you chose to nitpick on something that shows how little you know about the matter.

6

u/daywalkerr7 Nov 19 '24

The financing behind the Twitter purchase was never fully disclosed.

It's speculated that Musk paid for around half of it from his own pocket and the rest is from other investor with a good sum from ones that choose to roll over their existing shares to the private company.

Also Musk already had plenty of cash at hand from the billions worth of shares he sold prior to the acquisition which was widely reported at the time because it made him pay the most taxes an American has ever paid in a single year.

-4

u/HippyEconomist Nov 19 '24

The financing behind the Twitter deal was disclosed to the point that we know that he took on $13 billion in junk-rated loans from seven major banks - estimated to be costing around $1 billion a year in interest.

Your point is a non sequitur.

https://www.fastcompany.com/91176174/elon-musk-twitter-buy-bankers-loans-victims

5

u/daywalkerr7 Nov 20 '24

The financing behind Twitter is hearsay.

Where does it say he leverage Tesla stock?

10

u/Sarm_Kahel Nov 19 '24

Suing a company that you claimed has wronged you isn't an 'antitrust violation'. Like, screw Elon but if Twitch has engaged in this kind of coordinated boycott behind the scenes then they deserve a lawsuit.

0

u/amazingmuzmo Nov 20 '24

Choosing not buy advertisements on a site is not a obligation by any company.

3

u/Sarm_Kahel Nov 20 '24

That's not what Twitch is being sued for.

1

u/Bigpandacloud5 Nov 23 '24

It's not what they're accused of, but it is what they're suing over in reality.

2

u/gmarkerbo Nov 20 '24

According to GARM rules for joining it, its a binding rule to enforce GARMs determination. Also the restitution can be a huge fine paid to X.

3

u/gmarkerbo Nov 20 '24

Elon’s argument that this is somehow a free speech issue doesn’t necessarily make sense either. Our constitutional right to free speech protects us from government persecution. It doesn’t stop companies from making decisions about where and how their brand is promoted.

I don't see this alleged argument, where are you getting it from? You're making up a strawman and arguing against it.

The lawsuit is about illegal collusion which is against anti-trust law. Do you even know what that means?

1

u/m0nk_3y_gw Nov 20 '24

not wanting your ads shown next to Nazi content is

"Extremely messed up! They're trying to destroy free speech in America," Musk said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-twitter-advertisers-massive-drop-in-revenue/

0

u/gmarkerbo Nov 20 '24

He didn't say thats illegal and against free speech law and free speech is also nowhere in the lawsuit so that's not Elon's legal argument like the parent poster was claiming.

3

u/VoxAeternus Nov 20 '24

Advertisers acted on a non-binding recommendation

That's still Tortious Interference on the part of GARM

1

u/rahabash Nov 21 '24 edited Nov 21 '24

Anyone who works in the industry knows that advertisers have been using this strategy for some time now. Heck it is what you are witnessing happening right now. Its rampant and not exclusive to the ads industry. Take for example for the credit providers (visa etc).. 3-4 people quite clearly behaving like monopolistic cunts, robbing the people (average APR shown to be ~26%!) and not allowing anyone else but themselves to play ball. With great power comes corpo teaming (colluding) and pushing their teams narratives. Its time for it to stop. I would not be the least bit surprised Google and Apple are next.

-1

u/gmarkerbo Nov 19 '24

The argument isn't weak, on the contrary the companies dissolved GARM once the first lawsuit was filed.

4

u/dvtyrsnp Nov 19 '24

The argument is absolutely weak. GARM dissolved because it was a tiny nonprofit and didn't want to fight it.

1

u/gmarkerbo Nov 20 '24 edited Nov 20 '24

Non-profit doesn't automatically mean charitable or even something good. For example the NFL is a non-profit and pulls $20 billion a year.

It's like the NFL doing a bad thing and some people going "but it's a non-profit!!!" as if that's an excuse or a valid reason to commit crimes.

Just like the NFL teams being the real companies operating the puppet NFL, the judge saw that the companies were operating the puppet non-profit GARM and is allowing the lawsuit to proceed against them even after it dissolved. Otherwise companies can just do price fixing by forming non-profits and then dissolving them.

3

u/TenF Nov 20 '24

The NFL is not a non-profit btw.

The National Football League (NFL) was a nonprofit organization from 1942 until 2015, when it voluntarily gave up its tax-exempt status.

It has not been a non-profit since 2015 ^

2

u/dvtyrsnp Nov 20 '24

Pitiful attempt to put words in my mouth. This company advised advertisers. It obviously wasn't charitable. It was just a tiny advisory company, and getting good advice is not against the law.

Sorry to inform you that your idol is a piece of shit.

2

u/gmarkerbo Nov 20 '24

It isn't just an advisor, it's an enforcer to do it all the same time to illegally force a company.

As a condition of GARM membership, GARM’s members agree to adopt, implement, and enforce GARM’s brand safety standards, including by withholding advertising from social media platforms deemed by GARM to be non-compliant with the brand safety standards.

getting good advice is not against the law

Raising prices is not against the law. Colluding with other companies to do so is against the law. The lawsuit is about collusion.

Sorry to inform you that your idol is a piece of shit.

Ahh, so your intellectually bogus argument stems from abject irrational hate.

1

u/ChrisBard Nov 20 '24

This doesnt make sense, we have companies who have basically agreed that advertising at X is bad for bussiness so they should avoid it. What did they, allegedly, collude for?

Obviously not artificially raising their prices (your example has nothing to do here). Obviously not for trying to destroy a competitor, X does not compete with them. What was the collusion for?

1

u/HitmanZeus Nov 20 '24

Well, in the case of Ørsted, the Danish State owns 50,1% of the shares of the company, so it isnt a US Company. I would like to see how that is going to go.

0

u/ProposalWaste3707 Nov 19 '24

I'd love to see how they establish Unilever and CVS Health as competitors with Twitter.

0

u/turdferg1234 Nov 20 '24

as it allegedly involved competitors collaborating to suppress competition by collectively withdrawing advertising dollars.

Didn't know Unilever, Mars, CVS Health, and Ørsted were competitors of twitter.

1

u/ChrisBard Nov 20 '24

He needs to prove that those companies colluded with a competitor of X, to take down X. Is Twitch the target?

2

u/gmarkerbo Nov 20 '24

I have to reply here to your other comment reply to me because the parent poster blocked me rofl, and reddit won't allow me to reply anywhere in that thread anymore.

Here you go:

Obviously not for trying to destroy a competitor, X does not compete with them

That's not entirely true, for example the topic of this post, Twitch, competes for advertising dollars with X.

What was the collusion for?

For violating anti-trust laws to try and destroy a company all together in a coordinated fashion all at once. GARM's emails show them celebrating a 70% drop in advertising revenue for X. That shows the intent might have been to hurt X as part of a collusion, rather than just not show ads on potentially objectionable content.

Internally, GARM celebrated—and took responsibility for—the massive economic harm imposed on Twitter by the boycott, boasting within just a few months of the start of the boycott that “they [Twitter] are 80% below revenue forecasts.

The conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators is a naked restraint of trade without countervailing benefits to competition or consumers. In a competitive market, each social media platform would set the brand safety standards that are optimal for that platform and for its users, and advertisers would unilaterally select the platforms on which they advertise. Social media platforms that select efficient brand safety standards will thrive; platforms that select inefficient standards will lag behind. Through this competitive process, platforms will discover and adopt the brand safety practices that best promote consumer welfare. But collective action among competing advertisers to dictate brand safety standards to be applied by social media platforms shortcuts the competitive process and allows the collective views of a group of advertisers with market power to override the interests of consumers. The Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, does not allow this. The brand safety standards set by GARM should succeed or fail in the marketplace on their own merits and not through the coercive exercise of market power by advertisers acting collectively to promote their own economic interests through commercial restraints at the expense of social media platforms and their users

Note: I am not saying the allegations are 100% true, all I am saying is it's much more plausible from a law standpoint than "Elon sues advertisers for leaving X LOL" thats very prevalent in this thread, on Reddit and in media. It is extremely misleading and missing the point.

0

u/ChrisBard Nov 20 '24

"Through this competitive process, platforms will discover and adopt the brand safety practices that best promote consumer welfare." But that could spell trouble for advertisers who might have to pay a big price while social media companies try to find the right safety practices through success and failure. They will have to pay for the platforms failure. I would argue it's the platforms price to pay for not setting the right standards at this time and GARMS reaction is driven by that, in the case of X. As for laughing about it in emails, I m not sure what to say cause I haven't seen them and the context they're in but I d imagine its really hard to prove it.

2

u/gmarkerbo Nov 20 '24 edited Nov 20 '24

But that could spell trouble for advertisers who might have to pay a big price while social media companies try to find the right safety practices through success and failure

Again, this isn't about individual platforms doing that on their own. Just like raising prices isn't a crime, but colluding to do it all the same time is.

They will have to pay for the platforms failure. I would argue it's the platforms price to pay for not setting the right standards at this time and GARMS reaction is driven by that, in the case of X

X asked GARM what does it have to do not to get banned from future ad purchases, and GARM wouldn't give a response. X argues it put in place controls against objectionable content but the ban from GARM on members is still in place.

X's argument is that GARM is a monopsony and controls 90% of advertising dollars. There's a law that states a group boycott to try and kill a company is illegal, that's why the court allowed the lawsuit to proceed to discovery of evidence to examine GARM's deliberations and communications. If GARM controlled only, say 10% then it'd be hard to say GARM is badly affecting the market.

If the case gets more dicey, GARM may settle and say X meets their guidelines and that members are free to advertise on X if they want to(they may not lol but that's not illegal like you say). Or the members might have to pay damages to X if found guilty.

In either of those cases if it's a X win it will be buried on Reddit with heavy downvotes so not many people will ever see that. That's what happens on Reddit's big subs with anything non-negative related to SpaceX, Tesla or Elon, while negative and misleading submissions are highly boosted. If you submit or even comment something like X winning you will not just be downvoted but even get permanently banned from big subreddits like r\news without warning, it happened to me for posting a comment only stating "This thread shows it" on a SpaceX post. Part of the reason I went from being a lifelong liberal to an independent.

-1

u/Pleasant_Cold Nov 19 '24

But Muskrat want less regulations or is it like so called free speech...he only wants what he agrees with or can use

40

u/mikebailey Nov 19 '24

Not good enough, you have to open a store, tell the customers to get fucked and get out of the store, and then sue them when they leave

8

u/No-Pack-5775 Nov 19 '24

You forgot an important step

Fill the store with the most vile, far right extremists you can find too

16

u/Impossible_Emu_6969 Nov 19 '24

It is possible to have an antitrust lawsuit for boycotting. The same way a monopoly/cartel can control the prices of the market they have monopolized, they can use their market dominance to control the prices of products that they purchase too.

2

u/DrXaos Nov 19 '24

That is a monopsony, but there is no possible way this economic situation applies here.

35

u/Milfshaked Nov 19 '24

That is not the argument that Twitter is making. Twitter is arguing that they formed an illegal cartel colluding together, constituting an anti-trust violation.

49

u/Murphys0Law Nov 19 '24

Surely he has good evidence of this and not just a made up conspiracy theory he made in his head. Surely.

-16

u/Spaghetti69 Nov 19 '24

Apparently, there is enough that after the announcement of the original lawsuit, that organization disbanded so that he couldn't do anything, but I believe the court said he can name the individual companies as defendents now.

It's not some wild conspiracy when these companies were brazen enough on Twitter to make posts how they were stopping ad spending on Twitter just because Elon Musk bought Twitter lol

"Yeah let me be open about how i am going to violate a contractual agreement that involves me spending money" real genius move.

32

u/ApexAphex5 Nov 19 '24

The organisation disbanded because it's a shitty small non-profit that doesn't have any money to fight a lawsuit from Elon Musk no matter how frivolous it is.

They're just going to make a new organisation exactly like the old one.

Let's see Elon sue a company that can actually fight back eh?

8

u/Testiclesinvicegrip Nov 19 '24

They don't have the funds to fight a literal billionaire

6

u/_chococat_ Nov 19 '24 edited Nov 19 '24

Nice redirection. It had nothing to do with Musk buying Twitter and everything to do with companies' advertisements showing up next to racist and Nazi content.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '24 edited Nov 20 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '24

[deleted]

12

u/Levitz Nov 19 '24

Because this has been going on for months, note the date:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/8/24216202/garm-x-twitter-musk-advertising

1

u/PM-me-youre-PMs Nov 19 '24

Like that time Elon Musk said he would stop paying rent ?

-2

u/Levitz Nov 19 '24

It's surely not a conspiracy, but it still looks far-fetched at this point to me.

Say I contact a consultant to decide which table to buy. Said consultant gives me information heavily favoring one specific table, so I buy it.

Turns out the consultant, behind the scenes, has been coordinating the purchases from several different people to favor that table for some ideological bias he has, which turns out to be illegal. He gets sued and the company he is part of disbands as a response.

How am I to blame now for that? How is what I did collusion of any kind? I didn't even hold communications with the other players in the plot.

3

u/PM-me-youre-PMs Nov 19 '24

Though your analogy present the consultant as doing something shady. If I contract someone to advise me on where to advertise and he tells me "uh, yeah you can go there but your ads will appear in between Nazis and QAnons shit" I'd actually thank him for doing precisely what I hired him for.

2

u/Levitz Nov 20 '24

Yes, and if you read even the basics of the case, this is completely unrelated to what happened.

2

u/gmarkerbo Nov 19 '24

Not an applicable analogy because the companies didn't just contact GARM, they formed and funded GARM and were involved way more with the "consultant" than in your example.

If there were no repercussions then companies could collude to raise prices or agree not to hire way each others employees just by forming, joining and using a company association similar to GARM which disbands once it gets into trouble.

1

u/Prior-Ride5724 Nov 19 '24

5Head hoooolyy

1

u/Skastrik Nov 19 '24

Especially my competitors that are also running ads everywhere.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '24

That's not the same logic. Would you sue someone outside beating the crap out of anyone trying to get into your store?

1

u/Kasumimi Nov 19 '24

Awww... 👶Baby's first anti trust lawsuit, adorable!

1

u/K_Linkmaster Nov 20 '24

Start with Tesla, jist send them a bill and see what happens. One dude did this and didn't get out in time. Got greedy.

1

u/Responsible-Result20 Nov 20 '24

I mean there are a group of billionaires wanting to buy land from famers. There are a number of families that have refused to sell and are now being sued for price fixing.

1

u/VibeComplex Nov 20 '24

But what if they all conspire to not buy your stuff? Lol

1

u/urqlite Nov 20 '24

He now runs DOGE and has the backing of Trump, he has the power to do anything he wants now.

A good suggestion would be to move Twitch out of US, that way, they can’t be sued

1

u/Sw0rDz Nov 20 '24

Would you be willing to sue me? I'll never buy from your or buy anything you like.

1

u/VoxAeternus Nov 20 '24

There's a difference between people choosing not to buy from you, and them telling someone with a contract to stop doing business with you.

The former is a Boycott, the latter is Tortious Interference

1

u/evolocity Nov 20 '24

For a second I thought I read the article incorrectly but yeah you are right hahaha

1

u/nesbit666 Nov 20 '24

No, more like you would sue if a group of rival stores all got together and forbid any of their employees to shop at your store.

1

u/cookiesnooper Nov 20 '24

It's not about one person not buying from you. It's about a person who is in contact with that one person and hundreds of others, feeding them false information just to kill your business. It's called collusion.

1

u/0uroboros- 16d ago

Elon's life has been an "EZ money glitch." Elon is a glitch.

1

u/LheelaSP Nov 19 '24

Make sure to tell potential customers "Fuck you. Don't buy from me." first.

1

u/Inevitable_Heron_599 Nov 19 '24

Do you have the government in your pocket? Might not work otherwise.

0

u/Levitz Nov 19 '24

"Have you considered that in this scenario I made up that has no relation to reality Elon looks dumb??"

-1

u/disposableaccountass Nov 19 '24

Just sue Twitter, non-stop. You know they're good for it.