Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

I don't get this at all.

How can advertisers be forced to spend money on any medium?

On November 29 last year at a New York Times Dealbook conference, Musk in an interview with David Faber, told brands that had abandoned X, "Don't advertise. Go f--- yourself." After that, they were supposed to advertise on X????

1 posted on 08/06/2024 9:28:13 AM PDT by Miami Rebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Miami Rebel

GARM Exposed: House Judiciary Report Says Ad Coalition Likely Broke Law To Silence Conservatives
July 10, 2024
In The News
Brent Scher

Daily Wire
A congressional investigation has uncovered overt political bias in the leadership of an advertising coalition that’s being used to control online speech, according to a House Judiciary Committee report released on Wednesday ahead of a hearing on whether advertisers are violating federal competition laws.

The report on the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM, accuses the group of attempting to influence what content appears online by starving disfavored content, or even entire platforms, of advertising dollars needed to survive. Internal emails obtained by the committee found that GARM’s leadership strategized how to use the coalition against news outlets, including The Daily Wire, with opposing views from its leadership.

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/garm-exposed-house-judiciary-report-says-ad-coalition-likely-broke-law-silence


2 posted on 08/06/2024 9:32:37 AM PDT by janetjanet998 (Legacy media including youtube are the enemy of the people and must die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Miami Rebel

How can advertisers be forced to spend money on any medium?

Not being a lawyer my take on it is not that they are not advertising on X but they are in a conspiracy to keep others from advertising.

I am sure Musk’s lawyers know what they are doing.


3 posted on 08/06/2024 9:34:38 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN (I am not an expert in anything, and my opinion is just that, an opinion. I may be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Miami Rebel

It says X was owed billions of dollars. Was this for ads they had run on Twitter but refused to pay for, after Musk took over? That’s what it sounds like to me, anyway.


5 posted on 08/06/2024 9:35:58 AM PDT by Flaming Conservative ((Pray without ceasing))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Miami Rebel

It is not forced to spend that is the issue, the group pressured other organizations to NOT spend money on advertising, pretty much the definition of a trust.

The scope of antitrust laws, are to insure a organization or group of organizations do not interfere via monopolistic practices in an enterprise’s freedom to conduct business, and to protect smaller businesses, communities and consumers.

A group structured prevent others from using a service that can benefit materially from that harassment qualifies as a trust.


6 posted on 08/06/2024 9:36:07 AM PDT by Skwor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Miami Rebel

“How can advertisers be forced to spend money on any medium?”

They can’t be *forced*, but the various anti-trust laws make it illegal to *agree* to freeze someone out. That’s illegal collusion.


7 posted on 08/06/2024 9:36:29 AM PDT by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Miami Rebel
How can advertisers be forced to spend money on any medium?

I think it's a collusion issue. I think there are antitrust laws in place that are supposed to prevent companies from allying together to run another out of business. Sort of like price-fixing.

I'm no expert though. Just my take.
8 posted on 08/06/2024 9:37:01 AM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Miami Rebel
I don't get this at all. How can advertisers be forced to spend money on any medium?

I'm with you on that, unless it is X's position that the boycott defaulted on existing signed contracts.

10 posted on 08/06/2024 9:40:36 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /Sarc tag really necessary? Pray for President Biden: Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Miami Rebel

It is illegal to boycott. Your own company can withhold spending, but it is illegal to call on others to do so and leverage that demand. It is an ant-trust position.


11 posted on 08/06/2024 9:43:01 AM PDT by CodeToad (Rule #1: The elites want you dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Miami Rebel

These were advertisers that represented other companies. Companies rarely engage advertising on their own. They hire these third-party advertising management companies to negotiate contracts with mediums such as X and handle the advertising.

What these companies did was tell client companies that they will not advertise for them on any medium if they also want to advertise on X.

Since there are only a handful of these advertising companies that are nothing but a monopoly, that is the basis of the lawsuit.


13 posted on 08/06/2024 9:47:04 AM PDT by CodeToad (Rule #1: The elites want you dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Miami Rebel

Here is an example of an anti-boycott law. This one is Colorado’s.

Section 8-2-112 - Unlawful to publish notice of boycott
It is unlawful to print or circulate any notice of boycott, boycott card, sticker, banner, sign, or dodger publishing or declaring that a boycott or ban exists, or has existed or is contemplated against any person, firm, or corporation doing a lawful business, or publish the name of any judicial officer or other public officer upon any notice of boycott, boycott card, sticker, banner, sign, or other similar list because of any lawful act or decision of such official. A person who violates this section commits a petty offense.


14 posted on 08/06/2024 9:49:47 AM PDT by CodeToad (Rule #1: The elites want you dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

hold on just a second, wasn’t it elon himself that told the advertisers to go f themselves, and don’t advertise if they don’t like the content on twitter/X.


15 posted on 08/06/2024 10:17:24 AM PDT by VAFreedom (Wuhan Pneumonia-Made by CCP, Copyright Xi Jingping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Miami Rebel
From the article: ...coordinating with brands to dissuade them from spending money on the social media platform.

It's market manipulation and it's covered under racketeering laws.

The Global Alliance for Responsible Media Propaganda and the World Federation of Advertisers need to be dissolved and the korporate executives need to serve hard time.

21 posted on 08/06/2024 10:26:39 AM PDT by T.B. Yoits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Miami Rebel
Related. Don't make the mistake this is just about the Harkles. Watch the entire 20 minutes to get a far better idea of j6st who is involved. And not just on this side of the pond. From YouTuberThe Royal Grift.....

EXPLOITATION: How Meghan and Harry use the Archewell Parent Network as a Deflection...

GARM is just one entity involved.

43 posted on 08/07/2024 7:41:20 AM PDT by mewzilla (Never give up; never surrender!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson