• 11111one11111@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Please stop doing the fuckin reddit hivemind thing. This thread is full of people shitting on X but noone bringing up how absolutely horrible this article is. From the top the author clearly has done zero research into the advertising suit the article it’s titled about. Has there been a mass internet censoring movement that I missed? Since when has the shock and awe content failed to draw audiences en mass? Either way the writer goes off on this rant about the moral compass of internet content consumers being out off by negative content. Aside from the ridiculousness of the claim, the author at multiple points admits to their admitted speculation being truth. Didn’t take much to click on the link provided that is supposed to support his estimate that X lost 80% of its advertisement revenue THEN LINKS TO A YAHOO ARTICLE ABOUT THE SHARE VALUE DROPPING 84%🤣 I mean come on manual there are educated ways shit on X that are fuckin lay ups and this asshat can’t even avoid writing made up shit. His only other link that isn’t to other articles written by Gizmodo was a link to an article that is 6 fuckin years old speculating if Youtube would survive “adocalypse” back in 2017. Basically proving that the morality of the content doesn’t dictate the loyalty of the consumer or the very competitive nature of the marketing and advertising industries. Last fuckin point that irked from the comments is the notion like this company is being bullied by musk/X or whomever to back out of the lawsuit… theyre a fuckin $150 BILLION corporation. If they are pulling out of thr lawsuit, its because their board members felt ut was in their bottom line’s best interest not because they’re any mother Theresa. OK I swear to God this is my last bitch but I missed it on my initial read but THE FUCKING TITLE IS EVEN A BELLIGERENT LIE HAHAHAHA Unilever wasn’t fucking sued into submission like the fuking title literally says, they themselves pulled out of their decision and rejoined the X ad stream. Idiot author even tries spinning that as a David and Goliath bullshit by saying it’s assumed it was because X was making them pay for leaving!!! The only fuckin way a multi billion dollar corporation is being “forced” to payq fuckall is if it’s in a contract that will uphold in court. 🤣🤣🤣 Chatgpt can fuck this publication all day long out of real live journalists if this is the trash they’re putting out.

  • HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Unilever continued operating in Russia long after the Ukraine invasion as well. Will have to check if they still do even

    • phorq@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      Español
      arrow-up
      94
      ·
      24 hours ago

      When there aren’t proper protections in place for frivolous lawsuits. It costs them more to fight than it would to just advertise on the platform. Time for Ben & Jerry’s to make an “eat the rich” flavor with Musk’s face on the carton to advertise on X!

      • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        I mean, lawsuits are still one of the best ways for regular people to hold powerful entities accountable, so I’m super leery of anything that purports to stop “frivolous” lawsuits. I think the real underlying problem here is we’re expecting a for profit company to do the right thing in a market environment where doing the right thing isn’t the most profitable course of action. What we need to do is change the market environment or find someone that’s not a for profit corporation to do the right thing (both admittedly easier said than done).

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Those with deep pockets can threaten expensive legal action even if they know they won’t win, simply because those without deep pockets cannot afford to fight the legal battle without going bankrupt.

  • ryan213@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    21 hours ago

    They should start advertising again, but their ads only make fun of Musk/X. LOL

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      75
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      …while also owning Ben and Jerry’s, which just put out a flavor in honor of Kamala Harris.

      Like many massive corporations, Unilever would like to appeal to the Nazis and people on the left so that everyone buys one of the eighteen billion products they own every day.

  • Drunemeton@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    21 hours ago

    My brain is telling me there used to be an app that could scan barcodes and tell you about that company’s _______ profile.

    A quick search returns, the now seemingly defunct, “GoodGuides”.

    Anyone know of anything current?

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        Honestly for a multinational corp operating at the scale they operate that’s a pretty good report card. They look like boy scouts compared with Nestle, Coca cola etc

        No mention of paying for death squads, no forced child slavery …

        Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t boycott, just that there’s a sliding scale and if you have to choose a Nestle product or a Unilever one is less evil.

        • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Well with that in mind… At some point you have to buy stuff. Be it food, a car, a computer. Unfortunately there are barely any companies out there with clean hands, especially for things that mostly come from giant corporations. At some point you kinda gotta chose the lesser of two evils and be happy with that

      • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        23 hours ago

        The other side of it is that there is starting to be support for actually using the anti-trust laws that are on the books. Right now it’s mostly focused on Google and other tech companies, but there’s a huge problem in US markets with corporate consolidation.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Could antitrust laws be used here? I thought those were only for monopolies. I don’t think Unilever has monopolies, at least not in the U.S., hence the ridiculous amount of diversification instead.

          But I would love to be wrong about that.

          • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Under current legal interpretation absolutely not. Which is the problem that’s being looked at. It’s not legislation, it’s based on supreme court rulings, that could easily be overruled by congress. It’s going to be a very long debate before that happens sadly. Which is good on the side that setting a new anti-trust standard will absolutely rock the economy, so a snap decision isn’t in anyone’s interest. But at the same time, as we’ve seen from the pandemic inflation, without competition in the market, price gouging is getting out of hand. Market steering and manipulation by individual corporations is also getting out of hand, it just doesn’t generate the same level of public outrage.

            • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              21 hours ago

              “The economy” is going to wait to the last second to make any mandated changes anyway, then complain about not having enough time. I have no sympathy towards corporations. They can get their shit up to snuff inside of a year, or they can get fined into oblivion for noncompliance.

      • BossDj@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        My list:

        Ben & Jerry’s

        Best foods

        Dove

        Q Tip

        Vaseline

        It’s doable. But probably pointless? Do we need to do evil entities chart vs P&G to see which is worse first?

  • BossDj@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Coca-Cola (or cough Volkswagen) does not want you to see Nazi content or dead bodies and think of them.