X -Where Twitter goes to die.

[Dr. Ken]

An open letter to advertisers

Every day, hundreds of millions of people come to X to be part of the only global, real-time conversation. They come to share their thoughts and hear others. To share their content and see more. To debate and be debated. To entertain and be entertained. To inspire and be inspired. There is no substitute for X.
The power of this community to bring global conversations to life was the reason I was so excited to join X as CEO in June 2023.

After a career in media and advertising, I thought I had seen everything. Then I read the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee’s report entitled “GARM’s (Global Alliance for Responsible Media) Harm” last month. The report disclosed that their investigation had found evidence of an illegal boycott against many companies, including X.

As their report found: "Evidence obtained by the Committee shows that GARM and its members directly organized boycotts and used other indirect tactics to target disfavored platforms, content creators, and news organizations in an effort to demonetize and, in effect, limit certain choices for consumers."

The consequence - perhaps the intent - of this boycott was to seek to deprive X’s users, be they sports fans, gamers, journalists, activists, parents or political and corporate leaders, of the Global Town Square.

To put it simply, people are hurt when the marketplace of ideas is undermined and some viewpoints are not funded over others as part of an illegal boycott.
This behavior is a stain on a great industry, and cannot be allowed to continue.

That is why, today, X has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), and GARM members CVS Health, Mars, Orsted and Unilever. This is not a decision we took lightly, but it is a direct consequence of their actions.

The illegal behavior of these organizations and their executives cost X billions of dollars.

Since arriving at X, I made it my mission to continue to build a platform where people, brands and advertisers can thrive in our unique, dynamic and safe environment.

And because of this commitment to our users, even despite the boycott, usage has reached all time highs. Using a Twitter legacy metric, user active minutes, in August 2022, people spent 7.2 billion active minutes on the platform. Today, that number is more than 9 billion, a 25% increase.

The same is true for video - even compared to last year, daily video views are up 45% to 8.2 billion. X is innovating and growing.

We have met and surpassed the requests made by advertisers and groups such as GARM for new tools, both to improve advertiser controls and the effectiveness of our products to drive increased value for our customers.

We have proven our platform provides advertisers a way to showcase their brands and reach their target audiences safely, efficiently and effectively. That’s why I’ve worked in good faith with marketers across the globe to showcase our innovations and allay any concerns with brands whom I’ve partnered with for decades. The unfortunate reality is that despite all our efforts, hundreds of meetings and research to the contrary, many companies chose to dismiss the facts.
To those who broke the law, we say enough is enough. We are compelled to seek justice for the harm that has been done by these and potentially additional defendants, depending what the legal process reveals.

It's also clear that there are likely others who suffered at the hands of this activity. This case is about more than damages - we have to fix a broken ecosystem that allows this illegal activity to occur.

We will continue to innovate and ensure X has a vibrant future while the courts will hold accountable those who engaged in illegal behavior.

To all of you who have been part of the transformative journey we are on, thank you. Rest assured, we will not stop defending our global town square.
Linda

So much for gfy to those who don't advertise on his platform.

[RVInit]

The Behavior Panel are unabashed Trump humping Musk loving creeps. I watched part of a " body language" video they put out about Musk's interview where he basically said "fuck you, I don't care" to advertisers and they judged him as being "totally honest" in his "I dont' care". In this same video right after telling the audience that he didn't care he also threatened to sue them. That does seem to absolutely contradict the "I don't care", as pointed out by Dr Ken in the above post.

Apparently that went right over the heads of the four expert body language geniuses. You would think people with their credentials would have caught that. Some of their videos are entertaining, but I have noticed that any time they are evaluating statements made by politicians or people who have clear political motivation I can predict with 100% accuracy what their opinions on body language will be just by knowing the political views of the person they are "evaluating".

[bob]

So much for gfy to those who don't advertise on his platform.

To steal from the bird-fire site:

Advertisers: "Uhh, about those Nazis..."

Musk: "GFY."

Advertisers: [Proceed to GFthemselves.]

Musk: "SEE YOU IN COURT!!!1!"


(Yes, I know the site is actually suing the boycott organizers.)

[Slim Cognito]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of illegal boycott.

[bob]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of illegal boycott.

The complaint alleges that the group boycott violated the Antitrust Act; it also alleges the boycotters illegally shared sensitive information (i.e., their intent to boycott) with each other (also in violation of the Antitrust Act).

This is a tweet with a filing fee.

Harmeet Dhillon is PHV forthcoming on this, but of course.

[sugar magnolia]

So all the people planning to boycott Bud Light openly on twitter were illegally colluding? Or is it only when companies do it?

[bob]

So all the people planning to boycott Bud Light openly on twitter were illegally colluding? Or is it only when companies do it?

So: there's the World Federation of Advertisers. Members must abide by the federation's rules, and the federation has rules about brand safety. (I'm sure there's a benefit to being a member, but I'm not a worldwide corporation, so I don't know.)

Some member companies of the WFA got together (as part of the WFA business/mission) and decided that WFA shouldn't allow any of its members to advertise on Twitter. So the WFA passed a rule baning its members from advertising on Twitter. Lawsuit then followed.

This lawsuit focuses on the WFA, and the companies that caused the rule to come into being.

[sugar magnolia]

So all the people planning to boycott Bud Light openly on twitter were illegally colluding? Or is it only when companies do it?

So: there's the World Federation of Advertisers. Members must abide by the federation's rules, and the federation has rules about brand safety. (I'm sure there's a benefit to being a member, but I'm not a worldwide corporation, so I don't know.)

Some member companies of the WFA got together (as part of the WFA business/mission) and decided that WFA shouldn't allow any of its members to advertise on Twitter. So the WFA passed a rule baning its members from advertising on Twitter. Lawsuit then followed.

This lawsuit focuses on the WFA, and the companies that caused the rule to come into being.

Okay. That part is fairly clear. What isn't clear is why that would be illegal. A bunch of states have boycotted other states because they had rules they didn't like. At one point, MS had banned state travel to some other state for something or other. And didn't the NCAA boycott NC or WV or somebody for something or other? Or maybe it was the NCAA that was being boycotted?

[bob]

What isn't clear is why that would be illegal.

That's why this is just a tweet with a filing fee.

The defendants undoubtably will respond, "yo, bro, us collectively deciding not to advertise isn't illegal collusion or antitrust." And they may too also SLAPP Musk.

[sugar magnolia]

What isn't clear is why that would be illegal.

That's why this is just a tweet with a filing fee.

The defendants undoubtably will respond, "yo, bro, us collectively deciding not to advertise isn't illegal collusion or antitrust." And they may too also SLAPP Musk.

Thanks. I guess my confusion stemmed from the fact that I was trying to make sense of their legal theory. My bad.