Comments by "" (@shamrock141) on "Elon's Dumbest Suit Yet (Suing Advertisers)" video.

He also owns quite a bit of Tesla stock, funny that he's presiding over a case with Musk
12
Twitter is a privately owned corporation subject to the whims of Musk. The idea that he's creating the 21st century town square is beyond ridiculous when you consider that the fact that he's fine with race replacement theory videos, but will absolutely ban the word "cisgender" and journalists critical of him. He's no free speech absolutionist, it's just his speech that matters to him
4
They don't have the money to fight a lawsuit against the richest man in the world
3
Garm only told their members not to advertise, they fall under their umbrella of business operations and decisions. That's completely legal, it's the whole point GARM was set up
3
A non-profit disbands after a multi-billion dollar company drags them through expensive litigation, I'm shocked. It also seems like the first amendment doesn't matter to republicans when it's about people who don't want to do business with you
3
It's going to be, Musk announced it yesterday
3
It's a win for him, but Garm was a non-profit setup by the WFE to standardise ads between companies. Nothing about them will change, essentially Elon squashed a bug but it won't bring back any advertisers
2
What did they blackmail him with?
2
@Aisaaax where do you recall Congress saying that? A company choosing not to pay for services from another company because they don't agree to their services being linked to messages of race replacement theory or pro-adolf, man I wonder how that's going to pan out in court. I find it astonishing that you want to force companies to do business with a social media company that flaunts its unwillingness to moderate extremism. The advertisers of Snickers have no interest in relating their product to political speech, it segregates them from another massive sect of the market, but Elon does, and he wants to force everyone to play by his rules.
2
Trump invited a deadly terrorist attack on the capitol after losing an election, it's no wonder he was banned when he used twitter to spread that message. He didn't even get a slap on the wrist, how is that in any way similar to what people like Navalny were treated by Putin
2
Yes because in America it is cheaper and more convenient to declare bankruptcy or settle than it is to fight a case against a mega corporation.
2
How is it an illegal trust?
2
They don't have to pay for your services, they aren't silencing your voice or restricting it, they just don't want to be associated with it and the so called "free speech absolutionist" has a problem with that lol
2
Advertisers don't want tweets supporting Hitler or the great race theory on their ads? Shocking
2
They blocked a guy who was voted out of office and proceeded to incite a riot on the capitol that ended up killing people and beating them, he used twitter to incite an act of terrorism, they were right to boot him
1
@alekseyburrovets4747 that's not what blackmail means Aleksey. And yes a company that pays for a service has the right to ask for a set of conditions of how that service operates, Elon disagrees so they refuse the service. Now Elon is trying to use big government to force them, so much for the free speech absolutionist
1
Garm told its members not to advertise on twitter, that was the whole point it existed. It was set up to standardise advertising conditions for WFE member companies. It's members created this company to tell them whether or not to advertise, and when they accepted its recommendation suddenly Musk is crying foul play
1
Trump was banned after he incited an act of terrorism on the capitol that ended up killing people after he was voted out of office, and used twitter to spread that message, they were right to ban his ass. Biden is the current POTUS and has noticeably not incited acts of terrorism on US soil
1
Hilarious, Elon is the big dollar corporation trying to shape the world in his own image. He's got a social media company that completely promotes his political views, two massive companies leveraging money from the government and convincing them to build his brand of infrastructure, he's trying to shape the world in his own image. GARM had jurisdiction over their members, and told their members not to advertise on twitter as it violated their guidelines on acceptable content to advertise. Elon took offense and sued
1
Garm was a voluntary non-profit, they had zero power over the 100 multi+million and multi-billion dollar companies that were members, but these companies chipped in because of course they don't want their ads associated with extremist rhetoric. Yeah Garm shut down because it's not worth a protracted legal battle with the wealthiest man on Earth, you think advertisers are going to flock back to twitter now that they're gone? No, they'll just create another non-profit with the same vision in mind if need be and stick to their guns
1
@pudgenet well Musk announced his intention to do so back in March so it's been a while coming, but yeah it hasn't happened yet
1
Garm was not an advertising conglomerate, it was a voluntary non-profit and what blackmail exactly? I take it you have evidence
1
@maciekskontakt eliminate them how? What power does GARM have over X, and how is refusing to purchase X's services eliminating their freedom of expression
1
@TBaggins87 advertisers have conditions about what kind of content they want to be associated with their ads, they are paying for a service and expect it to follow safe guidelines. Garm was set up to standardise those guidelines, standards Elon disagrees with so they left. That should be the end of it, they disagree on business so they don't do business, but instead Elon is trying to use a judge that owns stock in his company to force them to come back and pay him to advertise.
1
Not at all, the replacement theory states that the elite must be complicit in and encourage it, but the Irish emigrated out of necessity due to the famine and were treated with great suspicion and bigotry throughout much of the US for a time, including systematically.
1
You can't force anyone to advertise on a system that promotes highly controversial political rhetoric. If these advertiser's can prove that their ads were being shown next to pro-adolf and critical race theory tweets they absolutely have a right not to do business with twitter. Boycotting is not suppressing free speech, it is exercising your own
1