• Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    189
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      89
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months 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.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

            • solomon42069@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months 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.

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months 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.