←back to thread

Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

(www.theverge.com)
420 points rvz | 1 comments | 31 Aug 24 13:28 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
toomuchtodo ◴[31 Aug 24 22:51 UTC] No.41412640[source]▶
“Masterful gambit, sir.”

(X is facing a deep decline in revenue, cutting its valuation from $44B to ~$12B [Musk’s stake is worth ~$7B], and Musk makes a choice that drives millions of users to an alternate site: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitters-revenue-collapses-84...)

replies(3): >>41412734 #>>41413298 #>>41414746 #
pqdbr ◴[31 Aug 24 23:09 UTC] No.41412734[source]▶
More power to him. He’s making the hard choices and paying a steep price for actually standing for free speech like no other big tech does.
replies(7): >>41412751 #>>41412796 #>>41412799 #>>41413244 #>>41413607 #>>41417917 #>>41423065 #
xmprt ◴[31 Aug 24 23:20 UTC] No.41412796[source]▶
> actually standing for free speech

I don't know how anyone can continue to claim this with a straight face when he sued advertisers for not continuing to advertise on the website.

replies(2): >>41413092 #>>41413192 #
WalterBright ◴[01 Sep 24 00:40 UTC] No.41413192[source]▶
"The lawsuit from his X platform against the non-profit advertising initiative GARM has led to its dissolution. A major ad industry group is shutting down, days after Elon Musk-owned X filed a lawsuit that claimed the group illegally conspired to boycott advertising on his platform." -- Google

I.e. Musk did not sue the advertisers.

replies(2): >>41413303 #>>41413315 #
eadler ◴[01 Sep 24 00:57 UTC] No.41413303[source]▶
Yes he did:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.39...

Parties include the following. The last 5 are advertisers.

- WORLD FEDERATION OF ADVERTISERS;

- UNILEVER PLC

- UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC.

- MARS, INCORPORATED

- CVS HEALTH CORPORATION

- ØRSTED A/S

docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69017972/x-corp-v-world...

replies(1): >>41413724 #
WalterBright ◴[01 Sep 24 02:26 UTC] No.41413724[source]▶
Yes, he sued not only the cartel organization, but its members. That seems only reasonable, as he sued them for violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Do you think the Sherman Act is an unreasonable limitation on the free market?

replies(2): >>41413789 #>>41414422 #
1. eadler ◴[01 Sep 24 02:39 UTC] No.41413789{3}[source]▶
I only specifically responded to the claim that the advertisers were not a party to the lawsuit.

I make no claim as to the nature of claim, the appropriateness of the Sherman act, or if the claims will fail as a matter of law or fact (or neither). I am not a lawyer and am especially clueless on the topic of antitrust law.

I did however, incidentally, see this recently which may be of interest on the topic:

https://verdict.justia.com/2024/08/26/why-elon-musks-and-xs-...