Fyi... a commenter[1] in a reddit thread focused on whether the alleged collusion tried to <i>"extort something of economic value from Twitter/X"</i> -- such as forcing Twitter to offer cheaper ad pricing. An association watchdog like GARM telling their members that a social platform is unsafe for their brand and causing them to pull advertising from it isn't an example of extorting a thing of value from Twitter.<p>I don't know if his legal analysis is correct but it sounds interesting.<p>[1] <a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1enote4/eli5_what_is_the_legal_reasoning_behind_x_twitter/lh84e9s/" rel="nofollow">https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1enote4/...</a><p><a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1enote4/eli5_what_is_the_legal_reasoning_behind_x_twitter/lh85khn/" rel="nofollow">https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1enote4/...</a><p><a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1enote4/eli5_what_is_the_legal_reasoning_behind_x_twitter/lh88i9m/" rel="nofollow">https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1enote4/...</a>
My understanding of the Sherman Act’s restrictions on collective boycotting is that they depend on evidence of non-competitive collusion between companies that would ordinarily compete in a market. But GARM’s actions don’t on face value meet either prong of that definition: it’s not clear that the companies have <i>colluded</i> to boycott Twitter, or that buying ad space on Twitter is comparable to competing in their actual market segments (the things they’re buying advertising space <i>for</i>). Or to make it intuitive: seeing that your competitors also don’t pay for a service isn’t collusion; it’s market research.<p>But even if these conditions were somehow met: what’s the legal relief here? Surely a court can’t compel Coca-Cola (or whoever) into a minimum amount of ad spending on a particular social media site.
So this non-lawyer read the initial complaint, looked into two cases, and thinks he has a meaningful understanding of how the lawsuit is going to go? Why is some random layman's opinion given any weight here?
I always thought the pretenses for this lawsuit were extremely thin.<p>Now that I see GARM was shuttered as a result of financial pressures from the lawsuit, I believe this was this was actually the goal all along. It didn’t matter that the reason was flimsy. It just had to pass muster.
How would this work if you’re dependent on a legal bad thing for your business, and that thing is way cheaper than the alternative? Let’s say you’re poisoning everyone who swims in your favorite local lake but it’s somehow legal. You and your competitors probably want to switch to a non-poison process, but none of you can because if you do, you’ll go out of business.<p>The usual solution is cooperation instead of competition, where you all agree you don’t want to poison everyone so you’ll switch processes. But is this saying that that is sometimes illegal?<p>If so, it seems like the race-to-the-bottom we all know and hate is a legal inevitability.
Maybe they can "stop" the boycott, but Twitter/X cannot force companies to advertise on their site no matter what the judge says.<p>Global Alliance for Responsible Media disbanded, so no reason for the Suite to continue.
hacker news commentary can no longer rationally judge Elon ventures.<p>If you are reading, turn back! Haters and Fans are the only left. There’s no dispassionate lawyers reading this thread on a Sunday.
This is so American.<p>I've been told multiple times 'vote with your wallet'. That's a typical neolib/neocon saying.<p>Organize yourselves to vote with your wallet? Illegal! Kill this idea with fire! Sue them! They're Hamas/Marxist/anticapitalists! We can't allow them to organize!<p>'Back in my days, we had a sense of community, we had more meaningful relationships'<p>I doubt this kind of people are dumb enough to not see their hypocrisy, so I have to believe it's purposeful.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sUwRiIncKUn" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sUwRiIncKUn</a> - "Tesla CEO Elon Musk: I'll say what I want to say, and if we lose money, so be it" (May 2023)<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_M_uvDChJQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_M_uvDChJQ</a> - "Elon Musk to advertisers who are trying to ‘blackmail’ him: ‘Go f--- yourself’"
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/technology/elon-musk-x-advertisers-boycott.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/technology/elon-musk-x-ad...</a><p><i>In the wake of Mr. Musk’s acquisition, GARM recommended that advertisers pause their spending, and several major companies, including CVS and Unilever, did so. Those two companies were also named in X’s suit.</i><p>The lawsuit seems like a slam dunk for X.<p>Why does Unilever need a consultant for this? It is obvious: You don't want your washing powder ad to appear next to controversial content? Then either a) negotiate with Twitter to make the ad appear selectively or b) come to <i>your own</i> conclusion not to advertise at all or c) or publicly state that you do not want to sell to Republicans at all.<p>But this whole state of affairs that there are increasingly single authorities for determining who can post what on the Internet is alarming.