top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 180 points 2 years ago (16 children)
  • [–] 100 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 44 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 88 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (9 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    You probably know some of their brands

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    ... a lot of those are repeated multiple times?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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..."

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 90 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I guess Unilever is just into that Nazi shit

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 77 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    ...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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 55 points 2 years ago* (17 children)

    If true, they deserve a consumer boycott. But it’s almost impossible to stop buying Unilever products, the list is endless. List of brands

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] [S] 65 points 2 years ago* (15 children)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    What is Unilever’s evil level, on a scale of Nestles?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 2 years 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 13 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 47 points 2 years ago (6 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (5 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›