Twitter 3.0

[Pakuni]

Everything else coming out is showing Twitter is following each juridictions labor laws

Source?

Also, given that a primary goal of the litigation is preventing Twitter from coercing employees into waiving rights during the layoff process, and that process already has begun, I don't see how it's premature.

[lawdog77]

So you do class action litigation? Employment law?

I have done a little of both.  My area is healthcare law, so those intertwine.

[lawdog77]

Source?

With all due respect. Look for yourself. I attached one link earlier. Plaintiffs atty was quoted in  Bloomberg as well, stating Musk is trying to comply. I dont see a judge enjoing Twitter on any of this. If state and federal law do not allow Musk to restrict litigation rights in a layoff severance, which I dont know if it does, then Musk wont do it.

[Pakuni]

If state and federal law do not allow Musk to restrict litigation rights in a layoff severance, which I dont know if it does, then Musk wont do it.

Because Musk has a stellar reputation for adhering to labor laws?

[lawdog77]

Because Musk has a stellar reputation for adhering to labor laws?

Thats not a legal reason for a judge to entertain this class action

[Pakuni]

Thats not a legal reason for a judge to entertain this class action

It wasn't presented as a legal reason for a judge to entertain this class action. i'm not filing pleadings via Scoop.
I'm just confused about why anyone would give Musk the benefit of the doubt when his record suggests he cares little for labor law.

[lawdog77]

It wasn't presented as a legal reason for a judge to entertain this class action. i'm not filing pleadings via Scoop.
I'm just confused about why anyone would give Musk the benefit of the doubt when his record suggests he cares little for labor law.

That was the crux of the complaint, that Musk did this in the Tesla case.

Another company owned by Elon Musk, Tesla, recently engaged in mass layoffs without notice. That company attempted to obtain releases from laid off employees without informing them of their rights under the federal or California WARN Acts. A federal court subsequently ordered the company to provide employees notice of the claims that had been filed on their behalf. See Lynch v. Tesla, Inc., 2022 WL 42952953 *6 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2022).

So yes, they are basing their whole case on Musk's past behavior.

[Herman Cain]

Former Management says they grow the business too quickly


https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/05/twitter-co-founder-jack-dorsey-speaks-out-after-mass-layoffs.html

[Jockey]

The authoritarian wannabe is threatening advertisers that leave Twitter.

"A thermonuclear name & shame is exactly what will happen if this continues."

[jficke13]

The authoritarian wannabe is threatening advertisers that leave Twitter.

"A thermonuclear name & shame is exactly what will happen if this continues."

It's very funny because that's *exactly * what I'd want to hear if I were directing ad spend. Overt threats.

He might be good at running a tech/mfg company, but he's really bad at running a social media company. I don't think he's playing chess, I think he's just out of his depth. This one takes skills he just doesn't have. Or maybe his strengths of essentially forcing his vision of reality to come to pass by sheer force of will, charisma, and pressure of capital are not applicable to a world where brand managers are making decisions based on very different criteria.

An engineer being compelled to design a part in house for spacex for $5k that could be acquired externally for $120k is something he's good at making happen. Threatening to go thermonuclear and sic legions of deranged sycophants on consumer packedged goods companies is not going to make PG increase its spend.

[brewcity77]

What Musk doesn't get is that in order for social media to succeed, it has to be welcoming. Facebook succeeded because it drew people in with connection and now has 2 billion users. TikTok drew people in by being fun and looping video after video into sustained engagement. It's expected to hit 2 billion by next year.

Twitter has always been niche. It has what, 250 million users? If he wants up grow that, he has to do so by moderating content and creating a welcoming space. Being edgy and controversial might get headlines, but it won't draw people in on all sides, which you need to get the kind of reach and connectivity he seems to think is possible if you really want to monetize the platform.

Further, the reason sites like YouTube and TikTok went supernova was because they became massive revenue generators for some elite users. There are people who have made million dollar careers because of the platform those outlets gave them, and in return the companies made billions. Very few people will stick around if the platform they generate money for is charging them for the privilege. That's simply not how it works.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

"Free Speech!" and also "We'll drag you in front of Congress if you don't comply!"

This should soothe those nervous advertisers.

[Uncle Rico]

"Free Speech!" and also "We'll drag you in front of Congress if you don't comply!"

This should soothe those nervous advertisers.

Snowflakes hate capitalism and the constitution. 

[The Sultan]

So apparently now companies shouldn't be allowed to moderate their own content but other companies should be forced to advertise there. Really strange.

[MU82]

SMALL GOVERNMENT!!!!

Unless we want government to climb into women's wombs, or government to tell corporations how to speak and advertise, or government to dictate what books Americans can read, or government to choose which votes count and which don't.

Then big government is OK because, well, that's what the Founders meant!

[tower912]

Why should GM spend money on advertising in a medium that is owned by Musk, who also owns Tesla, a direct competitor to GM in the EV market?       Talk about stupid. 

[Jockey]

So apparently now companies shouldn't be allowed to moderate their own content but other companies should be forced to advertise there. Really strange.

Free speech is a funny thing.

Even those of us who proport to believe in it fully (I include myself), in reality, have limits. Then we all worry about everyone else's limits and defend our own.

[lawdog77]

Why should GM spend money on advertising in a medium that is owned by Musk, who also owns Tesla, a direct competitor to GM in the EV market?       Talk about stupid.

Not everyone on twitter is going to buy a Tesla.

[tower912]

But GM shouldn't be giving their advertising dollars to a Tesla subsidiary.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Free speech is a funny thing.

Even those of us who proport to believe in it fully (I include myself), in reality, have limits. Then we all worry about everyone else's limits and defend our own.

The idiots don't know what free speech is. Of course Musk can make the moderation (or lack thereof) whatever he wants them to be. What they are upset about is that there are actual consequences for their racist, insurrectionist spew. The want people to be forced to listen their hateful, misogynistic bile, and apparently forced to support it financially.

There are already plenty of places the idiots can bleat unquestioned to their hearts' content--Gab, Parlor, Telegram, Pillow Talk or whatever the unnatural carnal knowledge it is called. But they are upset normal, sane people aren't required to listen to them and agree that their hate speech is wonderful.

Musk is perfectly within his rights to make Twitter into another Nazi safe space. But he is already reaping what he has sewn.

[lawdog77]

But GM shouldn't be giving their advertising dollars to a Tesla subsidiary.

Twitter is not a subsidiary of Tesla
If GM makes $$ by advertising on Twitter, why shouldn't they?

[tower912]

GM views Tesla as a rival.  Musk owns Tesla.  Giving advertising dollars to Twitter is giving dollars to the owner of a competitor.

[lawdog77]

GM views Tesla as a rival.  Musk owns Tesla.  Giving advertising dollars to Twitter is giving dollars to the owner of a competitor.

Wouldn't be the first time or the last (like Netfilx ads on ESPN). If it's a net positive for GM (which it may or may not be), they will do it.

[Dr. Blackheart]

GM views Tesla as a rival.  Musk owns Tesla.  Giving advertising dollars to Twitter is giving dollars to the owner of a competitor.

Amazon sells Apple products. Amazon and Apple both own media assets. Ergo, Apple should not sell products on Amazon.

[Uncle Rico]

GM doesn't have to advertise on Twitter