After the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary released a report accusing the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) of colluding with companies to censor conservative voices online, Elon Musk chimed in. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Musk wrote that X "has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators" behind an advertiser boycott on his platform.
"Hopefully, some states will consider criminal prosecution," Musk wrote, leading several X users to suggest that Musk wants it to be illegal for brands to refuse to advertise on X.
Among other allegations, Congress' report claimed that GARM—which is part of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), whose members "represent roughly 90 percent of global advertising spend, or almost one trillion dollars annually"—directed advertisers to boycott Twitter shortly after Musk took over the platform.
"GARM members colluded to cut Twitter’s revenue after Elon Musk’s acquisition," the report said, further alleging that "colluding to suppress voices and views disfavored by the leading marketers at the world’s largest companies and advertising agencies is core to GARM’s founding principles."
Twitter/X's revenue tanked after Musk's takeover, with Bloomberg reporting last month that X lost almost 40 percent of revenue in the first six months of 2023 compared to the same period in 2022. That's worse than prior estimates last May, which put Twitter's loss around one-third of its total valuation. Ars chronicled the worst impacts of the ad boycott, including sharp drop-offs in the US, where an internal Twitter presentation leaked to The New York Times showed Twitter's ad revenue was down by as much as 59 percent "for the five weeks from April 1 to the first week of May" in 2023.
(more)
No, he is suggesting it is illegal to conspire against a social media company by collectively boy-cotting their advertising service in an attempt to get rid of 'unacceptable users', like Trump. As far as X is concerned, Trump brings eyes. So that must be good then.
In the end the ludicrous bunch had to come crawling back anyway, but it did cause some financial hurt to X when the Lib advertisers all fled due to pressure from the GARM conglomerate. And who are those clowns anyway? Oh just a bunch of competing oligarchs, with a political agenda. It could be argued that it is unfair business practice to externally limit X revenue, given that in an open society anyone can advertise, and they should be able to do it where they want, without being told to not advertise by a third party, because of TDS.