- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
How is this even possible.
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!
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).
I’m not too sure how well pork fat ice cream is gonna sell though…
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.
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
Oh, I know nothing about Unilever specifically, you may be right. In either case, the basic “Cost not worth the price” reasoning still applies.
you spelled ‘losing potential profits not worth fighting nazis’ wrong
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”.
You probably know some of their brands
… a lot of those are repeated multiple times?
I think it’s the continents the brands are
Edit: actually “cif” is called “vim” in canada, so maybe there wasn’t that much thought put into it.
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…”
deleted by creator
To answer the question as written: yes.
See my response to @Docus. They own half the brands in half the houses in the world.
I guess Unilever is just into that Nazi shit
…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.
The funny part would be running said flavor ad on X
which just put out a flavor in honor of Kamala Harris.
Such a progressive company, they even left Russia!
Close to three years late.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/unilever-completes-sale-russian-business-2024-10-10/
At least they did it, but also a reminder that corporations aren’t your friend.
Did you miss the part where they were an unethical megacorporation?
If true, they deserve a consumer boycott. But it’s almost impossible to stop buying Unilever products, the list is endless. List of brands
For those unaware:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unilever_brands
It’s staggering. It also shouldn’t be legal.
Yeah, breaking up Google and Amazon is cool, but how about Unilever, P&G, Nestle, etc.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Edit: and to add, periods of time longer than one year incentivizes stalling for a different government.
Damn. This is not what Archimedes meant when he talked about moving the earth with a single lever.
Thanks. Just edited my post to include a link, then found your contribution.
Oh nice. I don’t use anything on those lists other then Ben and Jerry’s.
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?
Trader Joe’s ice cream is better
Hard agree, the coffee and chocolate are fantastic.
The only part of the flavor profile I don’t like is the anti-Union note we’ve been tasting lately.
Even so working there does not suck
The employees do seem happy and engaged.
I make $30 an hour putting potatoes on a shelf
They would deserve it regardless, but they’re even harder to avoid than Nestle
What is Unilever’s evil level, on a scale of Nestles?
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.
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
They should start advertising again, but their ads only make fun of Musk/X. LOL
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?
I used Buycott, dunno if it’s still around but I used it just a few years ago
It’s currently on iOS for 1.99
Not the same but app Goods Unite Us shows political contributions of companies. [email protected]
And I used to use one that showed I’d the company still did business in Russia but I can’t recall the name.
Thanks!
I haven’t used it in a while, so I don’t know if it still works, but the one I had is called Buycott.
Unilever continued operating in Russia long after the Ukraine invasion as well. Will have to check if they still do even
Coca-Cola (or cough Volkswagen) does not want you to see Nazi content or dead bodies and think of them.
Too late
Also Mercedes, Porsche, and many others
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.
Meet English (American?) News websites where every sentence is their own paragraph, I hate it
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
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
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.
A literate person takes grammar and spelling seriously - - - writers prefer clarity and creativity over conformity.
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
If anyone wondered when the late stage capitalism was going to hit: you missed it.
