3 ms·

Yeah, he might have a case if they were all trying to collectively negotiate a massive discount. But when they all walk away and effectively say "enough is enou

Yeah, he might have a case if they were all trying to collectively negotiate a massive discount. But when they all walk away and effectively say "enough is enough, we're done here" and have zero interest in returning to advertise whatever the price, there's no basis for a case.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> Musk’s X has filed an antitrust lawsuit against a trade group and several advertisers, alleging they conspired to withhold “billions” of dollars in ad spending over concerns that X would “deviate from certain brand safety standards for advertising.” Yeah, if you're carrying stuff that I don't think is safe for my brand to associate with, that's not "withholding" advertising from you. That's me saying that your site has become a cesspool, and I don't want to get any of it on my brand. You didn't have a right to my advertising that I'm unjustly "withholding" from you. There is (or the lawsuit claims there is) an active House Judiciary Committee investigation of GARM (the trade organization in question), for whatever that's worth. My take: I don't know the legal ins and outs on this. But Musk sounds like he thinks he's entitled to our ad dollars. That doesn't seem likely to attract more business - rather the opposite. (If you're going to sue people who once advertised and don't any more, then maybe it's better if I never start advertising on your platform in the first place.)
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > But Musk sounds like he thinks he's entitled to our ad dollars. That's what, in my view, makes the whole thing insane. The very idea that companies (or people) have some sort of obligation to spend their advertising dollars in any particular outlet is very hard to comprehend. I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that Musk is a person who believes that spending money is a form of free speech. If that's the case, then how does he square the idea of "free speech" with the notion of "compelled speech"?
ralferoo 2y ago
And contradicting myself, I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal > Though in general, each business may decide with whom they wish to transact, there are some situations when a refusal to deal may be considered an unlawful anti-competitive practice, if it prevents or reduces competition in a market. The unlawful behaviour may involve two or more companies refusing to use, buy from or otherwise deal with a person or business, such as a competitor, for the purpose of inflicting some economic loss on the target or otherwise force them out of the market. So I guess I don't know!

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

> Musk’s X has filed an antitrust lawsuit against a trade group and several advertisers, alleging they conspired to withhold “billions” of dollars in ad spending over concerns that X would “deviate from certain brand safety standards for advertising.” Yeah, if you're carrying stuff that I don't think is safe for my brand to associate with, that's not "withholding" advertising from you. That's me saying that your site has become a cesspool, and I don't want to get any of it on my brand. You didn't have a right to my advertising that I'm unjustly "withholding" from you. There is (or the lawsuit claims there is) an active House Judiciary Committee investigation of GARM (the trade organization in question), for whatever that's worth. My take: I don't know the legal ins and outs on this. But Musk sounds like he thinks he's entitled to our ad dollars. That doesn't seem likely to attract more business - rather the opposite. (If you're going to sue people who once advertised and don't any more, then maybe it's better if I never start advertising on your platform in the first place.)

JohnFen 2y ago
> But Musk sounds like he thinks he's entitled to our ad dollars. That's what, in my view, makes the whole thing insane. The very idea that companies (or people) have some sort of obligation to spend their advertising dollars in any particular outlet is very hard to comprehend. I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that Musk is a person who believes that spending money is a form of free speech. If that's the case, then how does he square the idea of "free speech" with the notion of "compelled speech"?

ralferoo 2y ago

And contradicting myself, I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal > Though in general, each business may decide with whom they wish to transact, there are some situations when a refusal to deal may be considered an unlawful anti-competitive practice, if it prevents or reduces competition in a market. The unlawful behaviour may involve two or more companies refusing to use, buy from or otherwise deal with a person or business, such as a competitor, for the purpose of inflicting some economic loss on the target or otherwise force them out of the market. So I guess I don't know!