Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Clearly you don't understand his post.

 

6 minutes ago, novacova said:

You seem disappointed that the voices of those you oppose aren’t being suppressed.

Annoying isn’t it.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
  • Love It 1
Posted
11 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

His advertisers also have the right of free speech AND the right to remain silent.... on X.

That is questionable as in most countries collaboration to destroy a competitor is considered illegal.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
Just now, itsari said:

That is questionable as in most countries collaboration to destroy a competitor is considered illegal.

so X is a competitor to Disney?  I agree with your statement but X's advertisers for the most part are not competitors.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

so X is a competitor to Disney?  I agree with your statement but X's advertisers for the most part are not competitors.

I believe it was more companies involved in not advertising with X .

If a company is not a competitor it is still considered illegal if a group of companies collude to harm another .

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, itsari said:

That is questionable as in most countries collaboration to destroy a competitor is considered illegal.

 

26 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

so X is a competitor to Disney?  I agree with your statement but X's advertisers for the most part are not competitors.

 

15 minutes ago, itsari said:

I believe it was more companies involved in not advertising with X .

If a company is not a competitor it is still considered illegal if a group of companies collude to harm another .

The companies decided to limit/stop advertising on X because X could not/would not promise that the ads would not appear in conjunction with material the companies found offensive.  That is their right.

Even if a single company/organisation advised the companies to do so, that is legal because the said company does not have any authority over their client's decisions.

Edited by gamb00ler
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...