Technology

58111 readers

4195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

404

Musk's X sues advertisers over alleged 'massive advertiser boycott'. (www.voanews.com)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by ModerateImprovement@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world

72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archive.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 188 points 1 month ago (3 children)

You can sue people for choosing not to do business with you?

Musk is such a fucking baby. He has no basis for this. He made major changes to the site, including a complete rebrand, and advertisers left. That's the fucking free market, and he's gonna sue?

[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 88 points 1 month ago

Even funnier, he literally told advertisers to go fuck themselves lol. Now he goes whining back to Mommy for new rules for his little kingdom.

[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 43 points 1 month ago (1 children)

He can sue, but he won't win in any sane court.

[–] solomon42069@lemmy.world 53 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No sane court? So it has a real chance of being decided by The Supreme Court...

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

They'd never even hear it. To give this lawsuit any credibility, they'd have to effectively say that businesses spending/donating money is not free speech. Which would effectively be the opposite of Citizens United.

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You think they give a shit about consistency?

[–] solomon42069@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

All that matters is the sponsorship tier - will you be flying the judge out to a vacation? Buying their mother a house? The outcome is solely dependent on your investment in the court. Justice.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Maybe they’ll say billionaires can sue as long as it’s an official act.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You can sue people for choosing not to do business with you?

You can sue people for whatever you want. But that's not what they're suing them for, if you actually read the article. They're suing for collusion.

X CEO Linda Yaccarino said in a video announcement that the lawsuit stemmed in part from evidence uncovered by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, which she said showed a "group of companies organized a systematic illegal boycott" against X.

The Republican-led committee had a hearing last month looking at whether current laws are "sufficient to deter anticompetitive collusion in online advertising."

I don't know if that's illegal or not.

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago

Ah yes, the pinnacle of small govt: legislating how advertisers spend their money when they won't spend that money on Republican platforms

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It would make an interesting precedent. Bud Light can then sue over the boycott with the whole LGBTQ thing because some didn't buy their beer. Celebrities being cancelled can try to sue magazines for not running their articles or ads. It's going to be such an unholy mess.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Did you just not read the comment you replied to? None of those things involve any sort of collusion.

E: Lots of downvotes and zero explanations... You people just lose all sense of rationality and objectivity when Musk is in the conversation.