Boycott X is not illegal

While the news cycles in the first presidency of Donald Trump have dominated the uneven claim on Trump’s social media, news cycles during Trump 2.0 seem to be prevalent by uneven titanium of social media Elon Musk. Director General X and the leader of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) made a surge of last weekend after Dona representatives were Access to the Ministry of Finance Payment System. But there is another interesting – if less sensational – a story that includes musk from last weekend, and it is noticeable as it illustrates facade Muska is confessed to the support of free language and free markets.

On Saturday, Musk added seven new goals to a lawsuit that accuses advertisers of violating the US antitrust law, deciding not to advertise on X.

Musk first filed this claim last August Against the World Federation of Advertisers and Unilever, Mars, CVS Health and Orsted. On Changed complaint Submitted on Saturday, he added Nestle, abbott Laboratories, Colgate-Palmolive Company, Lego, Pinterest, Tyson Foods and Shell.

Basically, Musk believes that these companies should be illegal in order to simultaneously remove the dollars from its company.

The lawsuit mask claims that these companies have conspired in such a way that it violates the US antitrust law. The companies were part of the World Federation of Advertisers and “concerned about the X, previously known as Twitter, will be removed from the brand security initiative called” Global Alliance for Responsible Media “,” Reports Npr.

In response, respondents and others stopped or reduced their platform advertising. And as a result, X lost a lot of money, according to the claim.

This, in turn, made X “a less effective competitor of other social media platforms on the sale of digital advertising and competition for involving users on their platform,” the statement said. Thus, the boycott allegedly violated laws against anti -competitive actions.

But in this case, X became less “competitive” because of its own actions and actions of its founder. You can judge yourself whether to resist the new policy mask on Twitter/X has been judicious or justified. But it is unreasonable to assume that companies should not be permitted To resist them only because it would make X less competitive.

Antimonopoly legislation cannot require private companies to continue to communicate with a company that they do not want simply because they will make it less competitive with this company. This would be absolutely contrary to the ideas of free markets and open competition, and completely contradictory the idea of ​​free language.

Musk tries to dress his complaint in the language of choice and freedom, arguing that the subjects of social media should be allowed to set their own moderation policy and that “collective actions among competing advertisers to dictate brand security standards” are bad for consumers.

And, of course, it was known that corporate organizations encourage the atmosphere, where speech – be a speech of employees, their own corporate speech, or speech of platforms where they advertise – is excessively “safe”. (I once worked on a women’s health web, where we were banned from using the terms “vagina” or “rape” in headings, since advertisers did not like it.)

But this is their prerogative. Private entities are quite free to encourage those with whom they do business to accept certain values, and they are quite free for the use of private market mechanisms – for example, as a boycott – as part of this promotion. Boycots are part of free markets and free expression.

An alternative that musk requires would be worse than a world of pierced corporations and excessively cautious advertisers. In this world, private market actors will be forced to continue business with entities that they want not and broadcast their speech on the ground they do not want. (Musk conservatives must imagine how it will turn out in other contexts. Do you want companies with conservative values ​​to prohibit advertising from platforms that have decided to promote porn, Kamala Harris and Dei?)

In order to add trust in their antitrust claims, Musk suggests that the advertising “against the unilateral interest of advertisers” and “had economic meaning only in promoting the conspiracy performed in trust that competing advertisers did the same.” This breaks down after the examination. At the time when Musk took a position, many people from the left center were upset about it and worried about the politics he would have arranged. And many companies were (I) were concerned that they were repeatedly adapted to progressive language standards and/or “harm” on social networks as a whole. Regardless of whether you agree with this whether it is unreasonable for such companies to worry about reputational damage that can harm them. They were also fooling that the exit of users would reduce the value of advertising on the platform and temporarily delay the costs to see how everything is flowing. In short, there are several legal business reasons why companies may have suspended advertising at that time.

The fact that these companies operated in tandem is not alone, underlies the complaint of the mask. But it should not have a little difference. Tandem is how boycottes work. And boycottes – individuals or corporations are a form of protected language.

Musk loves to style himself as a defender of free language and free markets, but he once and again demonstrates that this principle falls on the side when he contradicts his own interest. This lawsuit serves as an ideal example.

---

More news about sex and technology

• California policeman was found guilty “deprivation of constitutional rights by the color of the law” for the abduction and sexual attack on four women.

• Some meditation About where “Technical Law” came from.

• Changing Mandati to check age from online platform to app stores does not solve problems with age check write Josh Witro and Shoshan Weissman from the R:

State and federal legislation, which stipulates that sites check the age of users and, accordingly, have corrected their experience of social media, are still popular, despite the fact that they have repeatedly failed. From late time, politicians have turned to another model where parents should agree to download applications made by their children. But this new approach is as doomed as others because of the inevitable functional and constitutional issues.

• In an attempt to exclude an abortion on the determination of medical care, Republicans Weiming suggested an account To say “no action, treatment or procedure that causes damage to the heart, respiratory system, central nervous system, brain, skeletal system, connected or muscular appendages or organ function, should be interpreted as health care.” This definition excludes chemotherapy.

• Apple is launching New events and invitation of a service called confetti.

• Today in Strange Ai -lactation:

The future you, a new interactive artificial intelligence platform, developed by psychologists, researchers and technologists, which allows users to create a virtual older “I am a language model, and then personalized with information that the user invests. The idea is that they hope.

Today’s image