Really curious at what point making factual claims about content on a website and then those factual claims forming the basis for a boycott/ending ad spend becomes illegal collusion. If a cartel of companies says "let's drive this ad service out of business" that seems plainly to be a trust enforcement issue.

But the issue here is twitter made a bunch of business decisions that made brands feel like continued advertising on the platform would damage their brands. So is a mass exodus of clients following a bunch of moderation decisions that allow repulsive content back on the site a trust enforcement issue? I think plainly not.

What would be the outcome of this? That companies are forced to put advertisement money on a platform they don't want to advertise in?

I don't understand the point of this lawsuit, it seems to be kind of a PR move perhaps? Maybe this is all in the context of the presidential elections, to be able to bank on that "us versus them" mentality.

I'm not sure what will improve Twitter's PR and finances at this point but suing their biggest customers certainly won't help.

Suing your customers has such a positive PR vibe...

What about their right to free speech (including silence if they choose)?

[flagged]