Nazi vs Nestle. Always win for us.
let them fight.jpg
I’m torn about disliking this douchebag and liking that Nestlé is getting sued…
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?
Elon is a twat and a menace for sure, but Nestlé have employed business strategies that literally killed infants and caused malnourishment…they are a completely different league of evil, far far worse than what Elon has done so far.
Key part of that sentence is “so far”
Yeah, I tend to believe it would be better to stop the entity that has currently done the most harm, with no intent to stop, first…I’m weird like that.
Maybe both at the same time. It’s possible to do two things.
Musk knows no bottom, cause he is the bottom.
Tbf every body needs an asshole. Except the us, which seems to have two.
I love this song
You know you’ve fucked up when even Nestlé doesn’t want to work with you…
Obligatory Fuck Nesté
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.
To be clear, its not that twitter is too fucked up for nestle to work with, they absolutely would if they thought it would benefit them. Its that twitter has become so toxic that they see advertising there as a net negative.
To be able extra clear, fuck twitter, fuck nestle and fuuuuuuuck Musk.
Can someone explain to me how you can sue over a business choosing to not spend their advertising dollars on a particular service? I mean Elon specifically told his customers to “fuck off” and now he’s suing them?!? I just don’t understand these petulant little man children being so litigious when they get their feefees hurt.
Sure thing! I found an article that explains it better than I could:
Oh man. I wish OP would have posted this first.
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.
It’s also a strong signal to future boycotters.
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.
Easy, you pack courts with shills, you eliminate government oversight, and then you do whatever you want.
The actual “easy” part is that you can sue anyone for pretty much anything. Suing is entirely different from winning the case.
Why they think they have a chance of winning is the weirder question, especially when Musk publically told the advertisers to go fuck themselves.
Paying a couple of five or six figure sums to continue advertising on X, versus paying millions to fight a protracted legal battle - I know which option the shareholders of those companies will be pushing for.
Don’t have to win, just drag the case out, causing both sides to spend fortunes on legal fees. Guess who has the most money.
X has an estimated market cap of $9.4 billion, whereas Nestlé has a market cap of $219 billion. That’s a corporate superpower with no qualms about monopolizing freshwater or bait- & switching breast milk formula from babies. And it’s just one of the companies they’re taking on, with a shitty case to boot. So yeah… if I was Elon I would keep my head down.
I hate this timeline so much.
Maybe it’ll turn around after the Bell protests
You mean the Bell Riots that started September 1, 2024? I’m not sure how to tell you this, but that didn’t happen on schedule.
Instead of someone explaining, you could always read the article linked and see for yourself.
I did read the article.
For example how does this:
In fact, the lawsuit claims that ad prices on X “remain well below those charged by X’s closest competitors in the social media advertising market,” so “by refraining from purchasing advertising from X, boycotting advertisers are forgoing a valuable opportunity to purchase low-priced advertising inventory on a platform with brand safety that meets or exceeds industry standards.”
force someone or some company to spend their advertising dollars there. If a company spending ad money doesn’t like what the ad service represents, in this case Elon is a douchebag and we’ll just ignore the fact that he gave a Nazi salute at the inauguration, than they aren’t required to use them as a service, illegal boycott or not, which I don’t even believe is a thing.
Here’s a hyperbolic argument. Let’s just say for example we have two grocery stores. One promotes pedophilia and the other does not. The pedo grocery store has prices that are let’s say half of what the other grocery store is, because I don’t know fucking kids makes you feel generous. A bunch of people get together and decide they don’t wanna shop at NAMBLAmart. Is NAMBLAmart allow to sue me because I didn’t shop there?
Because unless I’m missing something, that’s pretty much the argument.
I think the attempted argument is anti-competitive collusion among all these companies. That GARM, fundamentally, is illegal as an anti-competitive initiative.
Thank you. This is exactly what kind of response I was looking for. I couldn’t find any logic in the argument at all. So essentially the organization is illegal. That at least makes some sense.
Edit: I mean I still think it’s bullshit but I can understand the argument now.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2069436850145993
50 States, 50 Protests, 1day
Feb 5 @ your downtown.
facebook
That’s a no from me dawg.
Can you screenshot that or something. I can’t see it without the Facebook account I refuse to have.
I can’t see it either. I’m not on Facebook. Someone found more details by googling it.
Organizing on Facebook? Wtaf.
The irony of using one fascist billionaires platform to organize against another fascist billionaire and his platform, but also the government.
No better way to get people who used to voluntarily give you money to give you more money than threatening them.
Hey Elmo, you told the advertisers to “go fuck yourself” in no uncertain terms, even repeating yourself for dramatic effect.
Hey I’ve got an idea Elmo. Go fuck yourself.
i don’t understand how it’s a boycott or how is illegal or unfair
deleted by creator
And he’s now President of the US so he gets to make the laws.
And he bought the position fair and square.
Criminal contempt of business model
Life goals, don’t fuck up so bad that even Nestle wont work with you!
I suppose after he gets done there he will come after people like me who have blocked every musk related business from my network.
YouTube 10 years ago: we’re becoming as straight-edged as possible to keep advertisers around
Twitter now: Fuck you (wait we needed you)
deleted by creator
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.
The lesson here is to never start advertising on that platform. You’re less likely to be sued by Musk if you never start advertising in the first place. Advertising on his platform is an unnecessary risk for your business:
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!
