• 11111one11111@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    12 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.

      • Laser@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Meet English (American?) News websites where every sentence is their own paragraph, I hate it

        • 11111one11111@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I get your point but the person you are responding to is 100% on the right side of this paragraph-less fence. I just started rage ramble typing. I’ll make some quick edits to my comment wall of text when I get home from the Browns Philly game if I can still type lol

          • Laser@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Oh, this wasn’t to take from his point, I didn’t even read your comment in the first place. Hilarious reply though. It just triggered another pet peeve of mine

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I admit I’m guilty on Lemmy of too-short paragraphs, but it’s usually more as a conversational emphasis thing. For example, I’d say something like this: "I was traveling down the road and I saw this dog. It looked back at me and we just stared at each other for a while.

          Then the dog spoke."

          But better short sentences separated by carriage returns than no paragraphs in my opinion.

          • yesman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            A literate person takes grammar and spelling seriously - - - writers prefer clarity and creativity over conformity.

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

              My last job i had for years I actually applied for their open machinist position but was hired on for inside sales because my understanding of the industry. That role grew from inside sales to operations manager in what felt like shorter than a blink of the eye.

              They basically had to teach me how to write busness emails.

              Short.

              Direct to the point.

              Lots of breaks in text to minimize loss of recipient’s attention.

              Save the bullshit for the phone call conversations.

              Edit: and avoid implied redundancies like the phrase “phone call conversations” lol

    • phorq@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      Español
      arrow-up
      98
      ·
      1 day 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!

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day 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.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        88
        ·
        1 day ago

        but its unilever. they have nearly unlimited funds to fight musk… if they wanted to

        i suspect they just didnt want the unilever name and its bazillion brands brought into public lawsuits for marketing reasons

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Oh, I know nothing about Unilever specifically, you may be right. In either case, the basic “Cost not worth the price” reasoning still applies.

              • rmuk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                6 hours ago

                Yeah, I was like, “Wow, I didn’t know Slim Fast was from Madrid. Wow, I didn’t know Slim Fast was from Vladivostok. Wow, I didn’t know Slim Fast was from Anchorage. Wow, I’d didn’t know Slim Fast was from Tiksi. Wow, I didn’t know Slim Fast was from Chihuahua. Wow, I didn’t know Slim Fast was from Jaipur. Wow, I didn’t know Slim Fast was from Alert…”

                “Waaaaiidaminute…”

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              1 day ago

              Yeah, I mean, that’s the gist of it. Corporations are utterly amoral and value only profit, not things like “not helping genocide along” or “preventing fascism”.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      80
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day 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.

  • ryan213@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 day ago

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

  • Drunemeton@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 day 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
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day 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
          8
          ·
          24 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
        17
        ·
        1 day 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
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day 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
            ·
            1 day 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
              ·
              1 day 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
        1 day 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
    ·
    1 day ago

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