News

It's ridiculous in the first place that this was allowed to be brought to Texas. Twitter is based in California; Media Matters is based in DC. Both organizations have fuck-all to do with the jurisdiction this case was brought before, except of course that Texas are in the chickendick minority of states who haven't passed anti-SLAPP legislation yet and thus wouldn't dismiss Musk's case outright.

Also, eat used gum off the toilet in a park bathroom, Musk; eating shit isn't good enough for you.

Edit: I was fairly mistaken about the anti-SLAPP thing; it's still stupid, but definitely see below for clarification.

Fucking rich people shit

I hope the judge so much as delivered a newspaper at the age of nine let alone worked a day in any business that bought advertising in any media because then we may see the smack down.

This whole thing is so absurd as someone who was on the media end. The advertiser-media relationship is (was?) wholly one of supplication to the client. It’s absolutely bonkers to see a media entity demand client business and sue. It’s like Opposite Day in Capitalism Land.

Kinda anti-capitalist actually there Elon.

It should be like when the Army asks you where you want to be stationed and then sends you to Fort Polk.

I want him to get Mike Judge.

The law he's citing is a good law, but it also very clearly doesn't apply here.

Coordinating an effort to protect advertisers from association with extremist content, like what Garm was doing, could very easily be seen as a boycott against Twitter, since it is a well established fact that Twitter doesn't do much to protect advertisers from reputational damage related to extremist content.

The question is whether or not the boycott was illegal. If the companies who rely on Garm's advice (World Federation of Advertisers and member companies CVS, Orsted, Unilever, and Mars, who are in named in the lawsuit) collectively benefit in way that gives them a competitive advantage over Twitter or anyone not a member of Garm, the sure, that could be an issue, but that's not really the case.

CVS, Orsted, Unilever, and Mars largely don't compete with each other in the same markets. Some even work in symbiosis (CVS sells what Unilever and Mars make / all three might use Orsted energy products). There's no reason to believe that anyone not subscribing to Garm's guidance is going to experience a disadvantage that can't simply be explained by Garm giving good advice.

Advising that advertisers avoid sites that allow hate speech and extremism is definitely a form of organized boycotting against any named website, but it isn't intended to harm those sites, it is only meant to protect advertisers from toxic association with hate and extremism.

I sincerely hope he loses this lawsuit. Putting Garm out of business is shitty, but setting the precedent that you're not allowed to respond to hate speech and extremism is dangerous.

It blows my mind that somehow he thinks that he can just sue people because they don't want to do business with him. This is purely frivolous and a bullying tactic.