Ah, Tesla! The shining star of Elon Musk’s empire, but it seems its glitter is tarnished. Meanwhile, its sibling—or should we call it a distant cousin?—the platform once known as Twitter is floundering. Elon shelled out a cool $44 billion back in 2022, but now it’s looking less like a golden investment and more like an ink blot on his ledger. While he’s been trimming employees like he’s preparing for a corporate spring cleaning, revenue is plummeting like a stone. Last quarter, Twitter reported a mere $114 million—down a staggering 53% from two years ago. One wonders if that even covers Musk’s monthly interest payments!
Musk’s masterstroke of management, however, is truly a spectacle. He’s fired a significant chunk of the trust and safety team, the very folks tasked with keeping an eye on the hateful bits. What do you get when you mix a laissez-faire attitude with social media? A wild west of far-right extremists getting reinstated! One even managed to share a screenshot from one of the most notorious examples of child-sexual abuse material ever. Progress? Maybe not the kind we had in mind, Elon.
Meanwhile, the ad sales team wasn’t immune either. With fewer sales reps than a karaoke night at a retirement home, advertisers have started to ghost Twitter. And what does Musk do in return? Oh, you know, the classic entrepreneur move: he’s taken his woes to the government. Teaming up with right-wing YouTube’s awkward cousin, Rumble, they’ve filed a lawsuit against several major companies—including Unilever—claiming they’re part of a conspiracy to withhold billions in advertising revenue. It’s like asking your rich uncle for pocket money, but with a side of legal drama.
Let’s not forget the pièce de résistance of this legal escapade: the judge-shopping. Musk strategically chose the Northern District of Texas, where the esteemed Judge Reed O’Connor—a classic “oh dear” on the judicial scale—awaits. Before long, we’re treated to the sight of O’Connor overseeing another of Musk’s legal disasters. Because why take your chances with a neutral judge when you can gamble on one who’s basically the poster child for “don’t believe everything you read?”
The argument itself is an absolute gem. It’s pulled right out of a House Judiciary Committee report that reads more like a screenplay for a courtroom drama than a legal argument. They allege GARM (what an acronym!) is colluding to silence voices the big marketing players don’t like. You almost feel bad for them. In actuality, GARM is merely trying to help brands avoid embarrassing pairings like a luxury watch ad next to a video of a cat fighting a blender. Because nothing says “I’m responsible” like a splashy advertisement next to a viral cringe video.
In short, GARM isn’t boycotting Twitter because they dislike the politics of cat memes. It’s simply that advertising on the platform is akin to playing Russian roulette at this point. Musk’s erratic decision-making has made it just too risky. When asked about appeasing advertisers, Musk responded with his signature flair, essentially telling them, “Go take a hike.” Genius! Nothing encourages advertisers like a public decree from the billionaire that they’d better watch their backs.
However, the kicker? Advertising is speech, folks. So, if Musk and his merry band of legal adventurers claim GARM’s actions amount to a political boycott, they might as well be waving their First Amendment flags while holding a sign that reads, “Freedom of Speech for My Own Benefit Only.” You can’t cherry-pick the Constitution, Elon! Just because you’re throwing some legal tantrums doesn’t mean you can ignore the basic tenets of free speech—the kind that defends corporations just as fiercely as it does individuals.
But then again, the last few years have shown us that in the realm of right-wing “jurisprudence,” common sense seems to have packed its bags and left town. This tale is all too familiar: a bizarre report from the House GOP, a cash-rich billionaire grumbles to the courts, and voilà—some agreeable judge rubber-stamps it like a credit card at a clearance sale. Who cares about the law when there are dollars to be saved?
