Sorry for Musk that he's never met Consequences at any point in his life until now (at least not ones he couldn't just buy his way out of), but, Too Fucking Bad.
Musk tweeted that he had "tried being nice" to those companies for two years. The same companies he told to fuck themselves. I wonder what he's like when he's being nasty.
For some reason these people think the First Amendment allows them to say anything they want without any social or financial consequence, rather than allowing them to say what they want without GOVERNMENT interference. You can say whatever the fuck you want in my presence, and the First Amendment guarantees that I have the absolute right to tell you to go fuck yourself and/or shun you socially and/or refuse to spend my money on anything you produce.
Except that the First doesn't actually say that either. The "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" is the classic example of the government infringing on an individual's 1FA rights in order to protect the larger greater good ("the greater good").
So he's trying to drain the resources of groups he disagrees with by forcing them to spend on legal defense. Just another villian move from a real life villain.
There's a link in the story to Chris Geidner's note where he explains who the single judge in Wichita Falls is. I can't remember her name just at the moment.
>> 1. How does the Sherman Act specifically apply to Twitter advertising spending? <<
The advertisers are themselves corporations, and GARM is a membership organization whose members are mostly corporations. The theory is that corporations talking to other corporations is illegal if those corporations agree on ... pretty much anything at all.
To be fair to Musk, a number of very large companies are part of GARM. GARM also includes a number of what are described as "holding companies" for ad agencies. If the filing is correct (I doubt it is, but I don't know anything about the ad business) 90% of worldwide advertising dollars go through a GARM-associated ad agency managing the ad campaign of some corporation or another.
Of course, ad campaigns are individualized. Any ad exec worth their salt will customize where advertising is seen differently for a large but local dentist and an international fashion festival taking place in the same city but whose attendees come largely from outside of it. You won't see the dentist advertise in Elle or the fashion fest advertise on the side of a bus.
The mere fact that a lot of ad agencies are indirectly associated with GARM doesn't mean that they all prevented any of their clients from advertising on Twitter even when their clients might wish to. But... the filing surely makes it seem like that is so.
Reading this, I'm put in mind of Bonnie Raitt: "I can't make you love me, if you don't."
Suing the people you claim to hate is the best way to get them to come back. /s
Actions, meet Consequences.
Sorry for Musk that he's never met Consequences at any point in his life until now (at least not ones he couldn't just buy his way out of), but, Too Fucking Bad.
I would like him to name a space ship "Titan", and try to go further up than ever before.
Ta, Crip Dyke. Musk melon is hereby invited to go fuck himself, at least as hard as he's fucked Tesla and Twitter.
Another man child having a temper tantrum. Had I a company that advertised on his horror show of “free speech”, I would have bowed out as well.
You can say all the shitty stuff you want but that doesn’t mean people can’t disagree with you.
In other words, Go couch yourself. Muskrat.
"Go couch yourself," has now entered the lexicon.
Musk tweeted that he had "tried being nice" to those companies for two years. The same companies he told to fuck themselves. I wonder what he's like when he's being nasty.
I fear Musk is dementing faster than Trump.
For some reason these people think the First Amendment allows them to say anything they want without any social or financial consequence, rather than allowing them to say what they want without GOVERNMENT interference. You can say whatever the fuck you want in my presence, and the First Amendment guarantees that I have the absolute right to tell you to go fuck yourself and/or shun you socially and/or refuse to spend my money on anything you produce.
Except that the First doesn't actually say that either. The "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" is the classic example of the government infringing on an individual's 1FA rights in order to protect the larger greater good ("the greater good").
So he's trying to drain the resources of groups he disagrees with by forcing them to spend on legal defense. Just another villian move from a real life villain.
I have no plans to buy a new car until 2030, at least. YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT, MISTER MUSK?
so, X about to croak?
According to Musk, yep.
Then again, Musk is not the sharpest egg in the carton, so who knows?
ah well. at least he has that sink.
Good. I hope it does crash and burn. He bought it. He broke it. It’s his fault.
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
Who's the judge that he plans to bribe? I'd like to tax Musk Rat Bastard to where his next meal is scrawny rat roasted on a skewer.
There's a link in the story to Chris Geidner's note where he explains who the single judge in Wichita Falls is. I can't remember her name just at the moment.
A couple questions:
1. How does the Sherman Act specifically apply to Twitter advertising spending?
2. What bullshit "rationale" did Elmo use to file this frivolous and unbound-by-reality "lawsuit" in Wichita Falls?
>> 1. How does the Sherman Act specifically apply to Twitter advertising spending? <<
The advertisers are themselves corporations, and GARM is a membership organization whose members are mostly corporations. The theory is that corporations talking to other corporations is illegal if those corporations agree on ... pretty much anything at all.
To be fair to Musk, a number of very large companies are part of GARM. GARM also includes a number of what are described as "holding companies" for ad agencies. If the filing is correct (I doubt it is, but I don't know anything about the ad business) 90% of worldwide advertising dollars go through a GARM-associated ad agency managing the ad campaign of some corporation or another.
Of course, ad campaigns are individualized. Any ad exec worth their salt will customize where advertising is seen differently for a large but local dentist and an international fashion festival taking place in the same city but whose attendees come largely from outside of it. You won't see the dentist advertise in Elle or the fashion fest advertise on the side of a bus.
The mere fact that a lot of ad agencies are indirectly associated with GARM doesn't mean that they all prevented any of their clients from advertising on Twitter even when their clients might wish to. But... the filing surely makes it seem like that is so.
Just go on twot and comment that Lonnie is a big fat fool with hair plugs.
He'll ban you in a day.
Can't advertise on a platform you're not allowed on.
Would be interesting to see the oil companies sue Tesla for not buying gas.