Elon Musk | Owner of X and right wing man-child

Kaos said:
A flag with white stars in front of a blue background. Can't quite pin where else I've seen that.

Nope, must only be Somalia.
Click to expand...
It's ok if you mix it with the polish flag. Obviously.
 
Redplane said:
In increasingly wondering who is more damaging to society, this dude or Trump.
For as hard as he allegedly works he sure seems to have a shit ton of time at his hands to make the world a worse place.
Click to expand...
At least Trump will probably go away one way or another within the next 10 years. Musk could feasibly cause harm for another 20-30 years.
 
Pexbo said:
We have a client at work who we were having a social with a few weeks back who it turned out is an off the chart conspiracy nutter (which is surprising because he’s one tier below SLT in a company that turns over £120m a year). Nothing political but we are talking alien megastructures, symbolism and all that nonsense.


Anyway he did this massive rant about how the sun is a hologram and was showing us pictures through the centuries of this sun with lines that are connected to the earth. His reasoning was that the earth was the source of the projection and the lines were representing that (it hadn’t occurred to him it was the other way round and the sun was the source and the lines were coming from it).


Anyway the big reveal was that actually it all leads to the Large Hadron Collider and his proof of this was the symbol which was in all these artworks going back centuries and centuries.


The symbol….? A circle.
Click to expand...

You'd hope that personal beliefs like that can be separate from his professional competence, but you'd have to seriously question his judgment and rational thinking wouldn't you?
 
Mike Smalling said:
It put's a real dent in his supposed free speech agenda. If it was so important to him, surely he'd be ok with swallowing the losses of Twitter for a few years? He can certainly afford it.
Click to expand...

It was never about free speech, just about hate speech.
 
Such a shame because the app has been my go to medium for news and information but the bloke has ruined it.
He’s a cnut. Fecking bastard.
 
I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea how strong the case is, but it's at the very least not as dumb as portrayed here. They're suing for anticompetitive collusion under antitrust laws, not simply for companies deciding not to advertise.
 
NotThatSoph said:
I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea how strong the case is, but it's at the very least not as dumb as portrayed here. They're suing for anticompetitive collusion under antitrust laws, not simply for companies deciding not to advertise.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also a choice as to whether the implicated companies get involved in such blocs? Its hardly an advertising cartel forcing their hand.
 
Kaos said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also a choice as to whether the implicated companies get involved in such blocs? Its hardly an advertising cartel forcing their hand.
Click to expand...

Companies acting together for anticompetitive reasons is a cartel. Twitter's challenge will be to show the anticompetitive part.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Companies acting together for anticompetitive reasons is a cartel. Twitter's challenge will be to show the anticompetitive part.
Click to expand...
Ah, fair enough.

Still think its a weak case on Twitter's part, especially considering Elon told them to go feck themselves, and continued to allow his platform to morph into essentially the modern day 4chan.
 
NotThatSoph said:
I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea how strong the case is, but it's at the very least not as dumb as portrayed here. They're suing for anticompetitive collusion under antitrust laws, not simply for companies deciding not to advertise.
Click to expand...

I have a small problem in this context. They are not trying to obtain benefits at the expense of the consumer, they are the consumer.
 
Kaos said:
Ah, fair enough.

Still think its a weak case on Twitter's part, especially considering Elon told them to go feck themselves, and continued to allow his platform to morph into essentially the modern day 4chan.
Click to expand...
Exactly. You can’t tell advertisers to go feck themselves and then act all surprised Pikachu when they stop advertising on your platform. He has the mentality of a spoiled child.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Companies acting together for anticompetitive reasons is a cartel. Twitter's challenge will be to show the anticompetitive part.
Click to expand...
That would make any co-operative a cartel. The key to being a cartel is cooperation to fix prices, production amounts, allocation etc. Companies working together to get better prices from a common supplier isn't forbidden. X will only win this if it's Trump judges having a say. Or if the other companies breached contracts, but at this point I'll believe anybody's word over X's.
 
JPRouve said:
I have a small problem in this context. They are not trying to obtain benefits at the expense of the consumer, they are the consumer.
Click to expand...

Yes, which is why the anticompetitive part is probably going to be difficult. Though, it's not really, or not necessarily, about being consumers.

If, for instance, they boycotted Twitter because Twitter also sold ad space to other agencies, then that would probably be pretty illegal. That's not happening here, and I'm not really seeing what they could argue, but again, not a lawyer.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Yes, which is why the anticompetitive part is probably going to be difficult. Though, it's not really, or not necessarily, about being consumers.

If, for instance, they boycotted Twitter because Twitter also sold ad space to other agencies, then that would probably be pretty illegal. That's not happening here, and I'm not really seeing what they could argue, but again, not a lawyer.
Click to expand...

It would be about consumers. The consumers in question being the other agencies that you mentioned.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Yes, which is why the anticompetitive part is probably going to be difficult. Though, it's not really, or not necessarily, about being consumers.

If, for instance, they boycotted Twitter because Twitter also sold ad space to other agencies, then that would probably be pretty illegal. That's not happening here, and I'm not really seeing what they could argue, but again, not a lawyer.
Click to expand...
Yes, if there were a different set of facts it would make more sense.
 
Surely the counter argument to any legal action is “we don’t want our company linked to any other company where the owner spouts racist bile”

Case closed?
 
The Purley King said:
Surely the counter argument to any legal action is “we don’t want our company linked to any other company where the owner spouts racist bile”

Case closed?
Click to expand...
You'd think so, especially when coupled with "oh and the owner told us - verbatim - to go feck ourselves, so we took him up on that and took our business elsewhere"

What are they suing them for? Billions of dollars of lost revenue? Fat chance they get a fraction of that, even with a favourable verdict. And then what? The advertisers will have moved on and Twitter will still have a huge financial blackhole they can't sustain.
 
The Purley King said:
Surely the counter argument to any legal action is “we don’t want our company linked to any other company where the owner spouts racist bile”

Case closed?
Click to expand...

Kaos said:
You'd think so, especially when coupled with "oh and the owner told us - verbatim - to go feck ourselves, so we took him up on that and took our business elsewhere"

What are they suing them for? Billions of dollars of lost revenue? Fat chance they get a fraction of that, even with a favourable verdict. And then what? The advertisers will have moved on and Twitter will still have a huge financial blackhole they can't sustain.
Click to expand...

Didn’t yer wan mention competition law? I guess the angle they’ll be going at is that by the advertisers all acting together they’re doing so as an effective monopoly? Feck knows if they’ve any chance of winning but they can afford very expensive lawyers but must have some sort of plausible case to make.

EDIT: Already been discussed, I see.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Didn’t yer wan mention competition law? I guess the angle they’ll be going at is that by the advertisers all acting together they’re doing so as an effective monopoly? Feck knows if they’ve any chance of winning but they can afford very expensive lawyers but must have some sort of plausible case to make.

EDIT: Already been discussed, I see.
Click to expand...

They don’t provide a service. They don’t have a monopoly on anything.
 
It should be fairly obvious he will lose the court case. It's no more than the bluster of a failed business.

It won't go to court either. Too many reasons for why adverts on X is poor value that Musk won't want to be publicised in court.
 
FrankDrebin said:
People seriously need to consider getting of that junk site.
Click to expand...

I did this recently, and I feel much better for it. The only I held on for so long was because there was a handful of people I had been 'twitter mates' with for nearly a decade. I exchanged numbers with some of them, and then deleted the account.

It felt weird at first, not being able to check twitter but after a day or two, you just forget it even exists. I feel much better for it now. Glad I finally followed through with the intention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.