Please stop doing the fuckin reddit hivemind thing. This thread is full of people shitting on X but noone bringing up how absolutely horrible this article is. From the top the author clearly has done zero research into the advertising suit the article it's titled about. Has there been a mass internet censoring movement that I missed? Since when has the shock and awe content failed to draw audiences en mass? Either way the writer goes off on this rant about the moral compass of internet content consumers being out off by negative content. Aside from the ridiculousness of the claim, the author at multiple points admits to their admitted speculation being truth. Didn't take much to click on the link provided that is supposed to support his estimate that X lost 80% of its advertisement revenue THEN LINKS TO A YAHOO ARTICLE ABOUT THE SHARE VALUE DROPPING 84%🤣 I mean come on manual there are educated ways shit on X that are fuckin lay ups and this asshat can't even avoid writing made up shit. His only other link that isn't to other articles written by Gizmodo was a link to an article that is 6 fuckin years old speculating if Youtube would survive "adocalypse" back in 2017. Basically proving that the morality of the content doesn't dictate the loyalty of the consumer or the very competitive nature of the marketing and advertising industries. Last fuckin point that irked from the comments is the notion like this company is being bullied by musk/X or whomever to back out of the lawsuit......... theyre a fuckin $150 BILLION corporation. If they are pulling out of thr lawsuit, its because their board members felt ut was in their bottom line's best interest not because they're any mother Theresa. OK I swear to God this is my last bitch but I missed it on my initial read but THE FUCKING TITLE IS EVEN A BELLIGERENT LIE HAHAHAHA Unilever wasn't fucking sued into submission like the fuking title literally says, they themselves pulled out of their decision and rejoined the X ad stream. Idiot author even tries spinning that as a David and Goliath bullshit by saying it's assumed it was because X was making them pay for leaving?!?! The only fuckin way a multi billion dollar corporation is being "forced" to payq fuckall is if it's in a contract that will uphold in court. 🤣🤣🤣 Chatgpt can fuck this publication all day long out of real live journalists if this is the trash they're putting out.
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Unilever continued operating in Russia long after the Ukraine invasion as well. Will have to check if they still do even
How is this even possible.
When there aren't proper protections in place for frivolous lawsuits. It costs them more to fight than it would to just advertise on the platform. Time for Ben & Jerry's to make an "eat the rich" flavor with Musk's face on the carton to advertise on X!
I mean, lawsuits are still one of the best ways for regular people to hold powerful entities accountable, so I'm super leery of anything that purports to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. I think the real underlying problem here is we're expecting a for profit company to do the right thing in a market environment where doing the right thing isn't the most profitable course of action. What we need to do is change the market environment or find someone that's not a for profit corporation to do the right thing (both admittedly easier said than done).
Those with deep pockets can threaten expensive legal action even if they know they won't win, simply because those without deep pockets cannot afford to fight the legal battle without going bankrupt.
but its unilever. they have nearly unlimited funds to fight musk... if they wanted to
i suspect they just didnt want the unilever name and its bazillion brands brought into public lawsuits for marketing reasons
Oh, I know nothing about Unilever specifically, you may be right. In either case, the basic "Cost not worth the price" reasoning still applies.
You probably know some of their brands
... a lot of those are repeated multiple times?
To answer the question as written: yes.
I think it's the continents the brands are
Edit: actually "cif" is called "vim" in canada, so maybe there wasn't that much thought put into it.
you spelled 'losing potential profits not worth fighting nazis' wrong
Yeah, I mean, that's the gist of it. Corporations are utterly amoral and value only profit, not things like "not helping genocide along" or "preventing fascism".
See my response to @Docus. They own half the brands in half the houses in the world.
They should start advertising again, but their ads only make fun of Musk/X. LOL
My brain is telling me there used to be an app that could scan barcodes and tell you about that company’s _______ profile.
A quick search returns, the now seemingly defunct, “GoodGuides”.
Anyone know of anything current?
I used Buycott, dunno if it's still around but I used it just a few years ago
It’s currently on iOS for 1.99
Not the same but app Goods Unite Us shows political contributions of companies. !goodsuniteus@lemmy.ca
And I used to use one that showed I’d the company still did business in Russia but I can’t recall the name.
Thanks!
I haven't used it in a while, so I don't know if it still works, but the one I had is called Buycott.
I guess Unilever is just into that Nazi shit
...while also owning Ben and Jerry's, which just put out a flavor in honor of Kamala Harris.
Like many massive corporations, Unilever would like to appeal to the Nazis and people on the left so that everyone buys one of the eighteen billion products they own every day.
The funny part would be running said flavor ad on X
Did you miss the part where they were an unethical megacorporation?
What is Unilever’s evil level, on a scale of Nestles?
Honestly for a multinational corp operating at the scale they operate that's a pretty good report card. They look like boy scouts compared with Nestle, Coca cola etc
No mention of paying for death squads, no forced child slavery ...
Doesn't mean you shouldn't boycott, just that there's a sliding scale and if you have to choose a Nestle product or a Unilever one is less evil.
Well with that in mind... At some point you have to buy stuff. Be it food, a car, a computer. Unfortunately there are barely any companies out there with clean hands, especially for things that mostly come from giant corporations. At some point you kinda gotta chose the lesser of two evils and be happy with that
If true, they deserve a consumer boycott. But it’s almost impossible to stop buying Unilever products, the list is endless. List of brands
For those unaware:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unilever_brands
It's staggering. It also shouldn't be legal.
Yeah, breaking up Google and Amazon is cool, but how about Unilever, P&G, Nestle, etc.
The other side of it is that there is starting to be support for actually using the anti-trust laws that are on the books. Right now it's mostly focused on Google and other tech companies, but there's a huge problem in US markets with corporate consolidation.
Damn. This is not what Archimedes meant when he talked about moving the earth with a single lever.
Oh nice. I don't use anything on those lists other then Ben and Jerry's.
Thanks. Just edited my post to include a link, then found your contribution.
They would deserve it regardless, but they're even harder to avoid than Nestle
Coca-Cola (or cough Volkswagen) does not want you to see Nazi content or dead bodies and think of them.
Too late
Also Mercedes, Porsche, and many others
If anyone wondered when the late stage capitalism was going to hit: you missed it.