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.

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.

Last year, Musk sued other “collaborators” in the X boycott, including hate speech researchers, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), and Media Matters for America (MMFA). However, his suit against the CCDH was dismissed this March, and Media Matters has claimed that Musk filing his MMFA lawsuit in Texas may be “fatal” because of a jurisdictional defect.

  • Corvidae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I could have sworn I read that Musk was a free speech absolutist. Freedom for me but not for thee?

    • dactylotheca@suppo.fi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is the case with literally every conservative crowing about “free speech”. They want full freedom for themselves so that no matter what they say there can’t be any negative consequences or reactions, and everybody else can get fucked and die in an extermination camp

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Their obsession with “freeze peach” has always been a facade to their true desire which is to censor opposing viewpoints and make their viewpoints the only form of acceptable speech.

      You’ll note that everything outside those bounds is “woke” and unacceptable

    • sundray@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Musk wants freedom of speech for people. But his definition of “people” is very, very narrow.

    • prime_number_314159@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      He only believes in the first 22 words of the first amendment. If you want to speak about what he has done, or (far worse) gather with others that share your beliefs to speak extra loud… straight to jail.

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      I could of sworn I read that shit doesn’t actually stink, but the pile of emperic evidence has led me to believe otherwise.