3 ms·
This is a pretty scary threat to free speech. There also appears to be a blatant conflict of interest here, considering the owner of the "certain social platfo
by solid_fuel 2y ago
This is a pretty scary threat to free speech. There also appears to be a blatant conflict of interest here, considering the owner of the "certain social platform" in question hasn't left the side of the president-elect in weeks and the Attorney General of Texas is directly aligned with the same two oligarchs - Musk and Trump.
How is this anything other than using the power of the Texas State Government to run an extortion racket, designed to funnel money straight to Musk?
Corporations are allowed to choose where they want to spend their advertising budget, and if they don't want to have their ads showing between conspiracy theories and outright hate, that's allowed.
- BLKNSLVR 2y agoThat should be allowed.
- montagg 2y agoFreedom isn't free. It costs lawyer fees at least.
- vorpalhex 2y ago[flagged]
- tzs 2y agoCitation needed on the binding rules claims.
- emilamlom 2y agoEvery source I've seen has explicitly stated that GARM was voluntary, not required of members.
- Terr_ 2y ago> What is illegal is for all the companies to get together and make a binding rule saying nobody can buy ads from someone. That is conspiracy. IANAL, but that seems... incomplete. Conspiracy to what? A conspiracy-to-X involves an agreement between parties to commit an underlying act X that is itself already unlawful. The idea being that mutual agreements are enough to show you "started" to do X, instead of merely just thinking about it. So the X here would have to be something else that's illegal on its own, or else the charge would be its own kind of thing like "anti-competitive practices."