You can also have friends if you just pay mercenaries to kidnap them from the street at gunpoint. Many many great friends at any time.

You just know that's going to be exhibit 1 for the defense.

Fucking fascist Nazi man baby doesn't like when advertisers do what he tells them, and then continues to do so when he realizes that was a bad idea.

Hey, when you're rich you can grab them by the balls.

Not if there's fewer there to see ads. They're still a business with a bottom line, even if what they do is terrible.

Nestle has an extremely safe, risk-averse marketing strategy. In part due to their various scandals, they try really hard to be family friendly and boring.

That said, they are not worse than other food and beverage conglomerates.

1. child labor: mars & others were also implicated. These companies were most likely unaware of the child labor being used to harvest cocoa. The way it works is there are wholesalers in Africa who buy cocoa from processing facilities who buy fresh cocoa pods from local farms. These wholesalers advertised themselves as being child-labor-free. The farms they buy from were using child labor. This is a problem with capitalism exploiting people in the global south, causing perverse incentives, and with companies having limited insight into the full depth of their supply chains.

2. water is not a human right: The nestle water exec said the quiet part out loud. But, no beverage company believes water is a human right - they just aren't stupid enough to say that on camera. If they did think it was a human right, they'd be working to ensure universal access to clean water rather than bottling it and shipping it around the world while limiting water access at their extraction points and polluting the water near their factories. Look at what coca cola is doing in mexico - rampant water pollution such that in factory towns Coke is the only safe drink for folks because the water is contaminated. Nestle is bad, but no worse than coca cola.

3. infant formula scandal: this occurred in the 1970s and was obviously awful. Every major multinational food and beverage conglomerate has stories like this if you look hard enough - this just happens to be a fucked up series of events that got some major media play.

People online scapegoat Nestle, but continue to buy electronics and clothing made with child labor, tree nuts/soda/and other products known to be harmful to watersheds, and many other products from companies which harm people in the global south. This isn't meant to defend nestle, but to remind everyone that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Nestle is not anywhere close to an uniquely evil company. Not even in its own industry.

The company might be terrible, but most of their buyers are normal people who either don't know what brands belong to them, or don't care enough to carefully investigate everything they buy. And those normal people are the ones the ads need to reach. If they leave twitter, what's the point of advertising there?

Most politicians are bought for less than a million. The guy has hundreds of billions. I imagine he can buy a few judges along the way.

In an actual court? In Trumps america?

Unfortunately he sued in the North District of Texas, which is a maga kangaroo court

When people go we may use child slaves in our supply chain, steal and ruin water supplies, and bribe medical professionals to get discourage breastfeeding, but you're too fucked up for us to work with then you know you've fucked up.

Preach. Never do business with a professional troll.

He must think it's like the old dealership laws. Once you enter into an agreement, you can't exit.

Advertise once, advertise forever!

Easy, you pack courts with shills, you eliminate government oversight, and then you do whatever you want.

The object of the lawsuit is to get these deep pocketed corporations to settle for millions. If the companies aren’t able to get the suits dismissed, they will settle. They don’t want to get on the wrong side of the current administration and it’s less costly than a years long legal battle.

Sure thing! I found an article that explains it better than I could:

Here's the claim from the article:

The complaint alleges that the WFA “organized an advertiser boycott of Twitter through GARM, with the goal of coercing Twitter to comply with the GARM Brand Safety Standards to the satisfaction of GARM.” And it claims that these efforts succeeded in harming Twitter/X, with “at least” 18 GARM-affiliated advertisers stopping their purchase of ads on Twitter between November and December 2022, and other advertisers “substantially” reducing their spending.

You can sue for anything.

Instead of someone explaining, you could always read the article linked and see for yourself.

"Free market" was nothing but a propaganda term...

That has always been the essence of the "Free Market", for thee but not for me.

Currently scheduled for 18th of March.

The speech is free. Xitter could advertise for these companies for free. It's the money that's being forced...

Oh wait I forgot money is speech. It's so hard to keep up with the state's counter-reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion

What about censoring " x ". That might help filter more posts.

Yeah I know. It’s how I got (well forced) to see this story as well. I mean this douchebag is so rage inducing how could you NOT filter him.

Yea, in a sane justice system, that one tweet would rpget this case thrown out on day 1. In the world we now live in, I'm not so sure.

It's harder to laugh it out of court when the plaintiff is in the government himself.

Criminal contempt of business model

Musk is not just supporting Nazis, he is a flaming Nazi himself.

"I'm in a government that condones - if not encourages - businesses from rejecting customers based on their own ideology, but don't do it to me!"

Nobody wants either side to actually win, we'll root for whoever is currently more messed up hoping they'll make a comeback and prolong the fight.

Wuaahh wuaahh wuaahh.
Musk will cry about this, about how he was so unfairly treated, from his cell in the insane asylum that I expect him to be in in about 10 years the way he has been getting worse for the past 10 years.

I mean he's being bukaked with publicity.... So if that's his thing?

What I'd like to know, assuming there is still logic and sanity in this world (please it's all I have don't argue) how would a company from this list have avoided this in the first place? Like once you start advertising with a partner like X then you may never stop? Seriously I'm not sure. So maybe just never risk doing business with anyone because you'll be sued into staying in business with them forever? I'm certain it's right in their contracts how and when they can leave, is that in dispute?

The legal system is essentially purchased at this point (remember everyone gloating about how the Onion bought InfoWars?)

There’s a chance he might find a toadie judge and get something out of this. Or at least be obnoxious enough that others might preemptively comply with something.

What does any screaming toddler in the toy aisle expect to gain?

All people are like that. Our brains aren’t built to handle that kind of obscene wealth and power. It would break anyone, just as overindulging in any unhealthy activity.

The fix is to not let anyone accumulate that level of wealth.

Boycotts are absolutely legal, you are completely entitled to decide who you don't want to do business with. However, illegality is no longer required for the justice system to be weaponized against you, and President Musk just wants to make an example to others who might not want to do business with an actual Nazi.

Surely it's up to the advertisers to choose where who they pay money to use?

The law doesn't matter. With Musk's position in the government this will basically end up as extortion: Settle or I'll make things difficult for you.

Are boycotts illegal?

It depends on the boycott.

• Map Shows States Where Boycotting Israel is Illegal

I'm surprised they haven't killed his children already.

Lego is based in Denmark and nestle is in Switzerland.

let them fight.jpg

No, the case is that advertisers used an Ad Advisory Group called GARM, that monitored advertising platforms on their quality, like being family friendly and keeping things within the law. When they advised their customers that they could no longer vouch for X, many advertisers followed their guidance.

Obviously they are in their right to do so, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with the procedures that were followed, like it was NOT cartel or any other kind of shenanigans by the users of that service.

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/ad-advisory-group-suspends-activity-following-legal-action-from-x/723785/

But Musk being a paranoid malignant narcissistic crybaby, saw it as a conspiracy directed against him personally. And the guy has more money than sense, so he is making a huge issue out of it.

Luckily USA is a nation of law, so he won't get anywhere with that, just like he wouldn't get away with calling people pedophiles for no other reason than to offend them. Thank god USA isn't corrupt as hell, so we can trust the courts to do the right thing. /s

On the other hand we also have EU warning against advertising on X:
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/11/17/eu-commission-advises-services-to-stop-advertising-on-elon-musks-x

Let me ask you this: how many ads have you run on Twitter? Does that strike you as fair?

If he does, they will lose ALL advertising

Its an american company suing an american subsidiary of a swiss company. It makes sense. You dont have to try very hard to find the ridiculousness in these people but this isnt it.

They can peg eachother. "Ass to ass!"

The irony of using one fascist billionaires platform to organize against another fascist billionaire and his platform, but also the government.

Can you screenshot that or something. I can't see it without the Facebook account I refuse to have.

Organizing on Facebook? Wtaf.

facebook

That's a no from me dawg.

Just fire some people, that’ll drive profits up.

"We're barely breaking even" mate, you're supposedly in the business of online services since the late 90s, you should know that they're generally "barely breaking even"

On the scale of who is fucking up the world more, I’d have to award the trophy to Leon. Certainly fuck Nestle, but won’t someone please rid us of this meddlesome billionaire?

Tbf every body needs an asshole. Except the us, which seems to have two.

Plenty actually, like former slaves from plantations which sold products to Nestle.

...it's part of the reason why Nestle is currently lobbying the EU to not dilute the supply chain act, those kinds of cases are a PITA for them, and the documentation they need to do for the supply chain act is exactly what they need to nib cases in the bud, "Here's the inspections we did, here are transcripts of anonymous interviews with random workers at the plantation", "If something slipped between the cracks we deeply regret that but we did do our due diligence, plaintiff's beef is with their ex boss, not with us".

It is absolutely more expensive to pay an army of lawyers to defend yourself than it is to pay workers proper local wages and document that. Not to mention that people who run slave plantations don't share their extra profit with Nestle.

The other reason is that they don't want smaller companies to have a competitive advantage: Smaller companies are not subject to those kinds of lawsuits, and also the ones complaining about the supply chain act. Nestle is also not at all keen on a consumer boycott from Africa.