in

Elon Musk calls for “criminal prosecution” of X ad boycott perpetrators

Elon Musk calls for “criminal prosecution” of X ad boycott perpetrators

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.

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.

Now, it seems that Musk could be considering suing GARM next. Although his post does not mention GARM, it quotes a post sharing congressional testimony from The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro. As Shapiro sees it, GARM’s censorship standards are allegedly too high because “GARM doesn’t draw the line at what is criminal, abusive, or dangerous.” It also restricts “hate speech, harassment, misinformation,” and “insensitive, irresponsible, and harmful treatment of debated, sensitive social issues,” such as misgendering.

X had previously severed ties with GARM but just renewed its membership July 1. In a post on X, the platform’s Safety account said, “We’re excited to announce that X has reinstated our relationship [with GARM]. X is committed to the safety of our global town square and proud to be part of the GARM community!”

As of this writing, X is still listed as a GARM member, which was a move publicly supported by X CEO Linda Yaccarino, who reposted the Support team’s post on her X account. There is no telling yet if Yaccarino’s seeming support of GARM may strain her relationship with Musk, who has parted ways with several X executives during his reign over content moderation conflicts.

The Committee on the Judiciary reported that GARM may be violating the Sherman Act, which “makes unreasonable restraints of trade illegal,” including certain cases when “group boycotts and coordinated actions” harm consumers.

GARM allegedly harmed consumers by wielding its “tremendous market power in the advertising industry” and “eliminating a variety of content and viewpoints available to consumers.” This allegedly worked to “rob consumers of choices” and “is likely illegal under the antitrust laws,” in addition to threatening “fundamental American freedoms,” the committee’s report said.

According to the report, “the high market share of GARM and its members in advertising campaigns and spending, combined with the direct evidence of demonetizing certain viewpoints to limit consumer choice,” allegedly “meet the initial burden of demonstrating harm to consumers.”

“The information uncovered to date of WFA and GARM’s collusive conduct to demonetize disfavored content is alarming,” the committee concluded and vowed to “continue its investigation into the companies that participate in this conduct to inform potential legislative reforms.”

GARM’s response to Congress’ report
GARM told Ars that it “has continually demonstrated that it will cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee in good faith.”

The committee’s report “does not include the 168-page transcribed interview which effectively clarifies questions on GARM’s adherence to competition law policy and practices, that GARM is a voluntary organization, and that guidance from GARM is non-binding,” GARM said.

“We remain steadfast in the conviction that GARM enhances transparency in previously opaque practices relative to ad placements in digital social media,” GARM said. “GARM creates voluntary industry standards on brand safety and suitability which media sellers and ad tech companies can voluntarily adopt, adapt or reject. This in turn allows advertisers to make choices similar to the way they buy advertising in TV, print or radio. GARM’s work focuses on voluntary monetization standards while establishing voluntary steps to improve transparency on content moderation and platform design.”

GARM confirmed that it will continue to cooperate with the House committee as it continues its investigation but denied allegations of misconduct raised against GARM and WFA.

“In consultation with legal counsel, WFA maintains robust and effective compliance policies designed to enhance competition,” GARM told Ars. “These policies, along with other materials and information provided to the House Judiciary Committee corroborates that GARM has been diligent in always driving a voluntary and pro-competitive approach and that the allegations against GARM for anti-competitive behavior are baseless.”

What do you think?

Newbie

Written by Buzzapp Master

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

    Shady company relaunches popular old tech blogs, steals writers’ identities

    Shady company relaunches popular old tech blogs, steals writers’ identities

    First “Miss AI” contest sparks ire for pushing unrealistic beauty standards

    First “Miss AI” contest sparks ire for pushing unrealistic beauty standards