Jim Jordan Demands Major Ad Companies Explain Why They Won’t Advertise On Truth Social
from the not-wanting-to-funnel-money-to-trump?-that's-a-crime! dept
Jim Jordan, who heads the House Judiciary Committee and its subcommittee on “the weaponization of the federal government,” continues to use “weaponize the power of the federal government” to punish his enemies and support his friends. He’s done this before. Many times before.
The latest seems particularly pathetic. You would have to be particularly wedded to weaponizing your power to think that a congressional committee has any role in figuring out why companies don’t want to advertise on Truth Social or ExTwitter. But apparently, Jim Jordan has decided to be just that pathetic.
In the wake of Donald Trump’s Truth Social going public and revealing that it’s only earning around $1 million/quarter (i.e., a few hundred thousand dollars per month) because no one but scammers want to advertise on a small platform full of very clueless people, Jordan is pretending that it violates the law for big ad firms to not buy ads on sites dominated by conspiracy theorists and grifters.
He sent out letters to some of the largest advertisers, accusing them of antitrust violations for merely pointing out that for the sake of brand safety, companies should think carefully before putting their ads on sites frequented by conspiracy theory nutjobs.
Today, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) sent letters to the Chief Executive Officers of Diageo, GroupM, Mars, Incorporated, The Procter & Gamble Company, and Unilever, all members of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media’s (GARM) Steer Team, requesting documents and communications as the Committee continues its oversight of the adequacy and enforcement of U.S. antitrust laws. The World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) through its GARM initiative may be acting inconsistent with U.S. antitrust laws and congressional intent by coordinating GARM members’ efforts to demonetize and eliminate disfavored content online.
Evidence obtained by the Committee suggests that GARM members, led by Steer Team members, are colluding to demonetize conservative platforms and voices. This coordination does not always revolve around “brand safety” and “harmful” content as GARM publicly claims, but instead the desire to censor conservative and other views that GARM members disfavor. Communications reviewed by the Committee directly connects the major corporations with these efforts.
So, first of all: bullshit. None of the companies want to “censor conservative” views. It’s just that, in the current moment, more conservatives believe in nonsense and conspiracy theories, in part due to efforts by nonsense peddlers like Jim Jordan. That’s not to say there isn’t some level of nonsense and conspiracy thinking at the other end of the spectrum, because there is. But it’s become mainstream thinking in the modern GOP, with the help of people like Jordan.
And company ad strategy is never driven by ideology. It’s always driven by what is best for the company’s bottom line. Companies would happily advertise to conspiracy theorist nutjobs, of the like Jordan likes to cultivate, if it helps their bottom line. It’s just that the companies have realized that most people are actually turned off by conspiracy theory nutjobs and get a negative impression of advertisers who cater to them.
Hence the “brand safety.”
The demands from Jordan are pretty silly.
Procter & Gamble’s position on GARM’s Steer Team places Procter & Gamble at the center of many of the concerning actions GARM and its members coordinated. Evidence the Committee has obtained suggests that GARM members, led by Steer Team members, are colluding to demonetize conservative platforms and voices. Further, this coordination does not always revolve around “brand safety” and “harmful” content as GARM publicly claims, but instead the desire to censor conservative and other views that GARM members disfavor. Communications the Committee has reviewed directly connects Procter & Gamble with these efforts.
Under the Sherman Act, these types of agreements may be illegal, and they require considering the adequacy of current law. The actions are concerning and warrant oversight because the harm that GARM causes to consumers is severe. For example, content creators lose revenue as “advertising investment is steered away from” content that GARM disfavors. Less content is then available as platforms remove disfavored material, and as creators and publishers lose income.
Advertising companies speaking up and suggesting “hey, maybe we shouldn’t help fund websites pushing fascist ideology, or pushing the drinking of bleach as a healthcare solution” are not engaging in antitrust activity. They’re just responding with common sense to the kind of nonsense coming out of the House these days.
Filed Under: advertising, antitrust, brand safety, jim jordan
Companies: diageo, groupm, mars, p&g, truth social, twitter, unilever, x
Comments on “Jim Jordan Demands Major Ad Companies Explain Why They Won’t Advertise On Truth Social”
The advertisers should just hide in a locker room. Gym won’t see anything.
Re:
Frameable response
Far right: we support free speech and free markets!
Businesses: We’ve decided it’s not in our best interest to advertise on this far-right website.
Far right: Advertise there or else!
Re: Or to put it another way:
Conservatives: LET THE FREE MARKET DECIDE
Free market: decides
Conservatives: this is outRAGEOUS
(All credit to Twitter user @nhbaptiste.)
Re: Re:
It is only a matter of time before Musk finds out about that meme and deletes it; thus truly failing to grok that post.
Re: Re:
In fairness, the MAGA crowd has never even pretended to want the market to decide. “Tax all imports and hand out cash to favored American businesses” has been Trump’s schtick from day one.
Re: Re: Re:
The MAGA ideology is sufficiently similar to the official line of the Chinese Communist Party that there’s not only a widely believed conspiracy theory that Trump is an agent by the Chinese intelligence service… on Weibo and other Chinese platforms, but it has been allowed to propagate because he has been so incompetent broadly speaking at hiding said affinity that censoring the theory would be taken as confirmation and in turn, serve as a tacit critique of Xi’s own competence in meritocratically select officials in charge of intelligence and national security. Not censoring, in turn, does not automatically mean approval but the possibility that either it’s not important enough to censor, or that it’s considered to be so obviously false that common sense alone would be sufficient, or the inverse. In any case, censorship generally leads to one conclusion, while leaving it uncensored is the equivalent of a no-comment and lots of crazy stuff gets posted with a similar treatment.
Except those tend to be flashes in a pan, and this has been around for 7 years. This is augmented with, understandably, the lack of broad understanding of the role of religion and the Catholic intergralists which Trump has essentially allowed to propagate freely a vision that is effectively identical to “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” except replace “CCP” with “the church” as the CCP is effectively a religion onto itself.
I’ve tried to suggest that it’s not a conspiracy but stupidity and was roundly rejected as apparently it’s harder to believe that the American president is actually stupid instead of merely incompetent. And for some reason stupidity and incompetency can’t co-exist because incompetency is viewed, wrongly but persistently, as a broad trait like stupidity and not individualized to specific categories (the Ben Carson situation, except nobody in China knows who he is). But yeah, Trump has managed to do something unique at least, which is to trigger a conspiracy theory about him being in the CCP’s pockets in China that the CCP views as favorable enough not to simply censor. This isn’t Q-Anon (that kind of moral panic just doesn’t play in the country) but has a similar sort of influence.
Congrats MAGA, your idiot chief is parroting the CCP so hard that people in China thinks that you’re a bad communist and not an American nativist. Except they even have the border secured without the wall (since that was tried for 1800 years and did nothing to stop invasions and there’s a lot of bewilderment as to why a solution that arguably have failed consistently from 200 BC into the 1800s would work now). Authoritarians know authoritarians and if they think that you’re a failure at pushing authoritarianism, they might actually be right about that.
Saying the quiet part out loud again there Jim
And now refusing to give money to conspiracy theorists and/or bigots counts as ‘silencing’ them, modern US conservatives truly are the most pathetic, self-entitled and fragile ego’d lot in existence…
Re:
They’re modern feudal lords and you haven’t paid adequate tribute to their hegemony.
Potential energy is not a form of energy.
Potential income is not a form of income.
Tell me how content creators have “lost” something they had before.
Re:
Yeah, but it is becoming increasingly popular in politics to pretend that it is. See, for example, the talk about “taxing unrealized capital gains”. I.e., taxing money you haven’t actually made.
I miss the days when the two major parties were stupid in different ways…
Re:
Potential energy is not a form of energy.
So I hate to break it to you since that’s a very nice little catchphrase, but potential energy is very explicitly a form of energy.
Re:
Potential income is indeed a “thing” – just ask the tax man. On the standard form 1040, you are asked “How much did you earn in the previous year. Include as-yet unreceived payments for products, services or work performed.”
If you were thinking that if you didn’t work, then you didn’t earn any income, that’d be true. But then again, if you don’t work, there’s no potential anything, let alone income. IOW, you left all that potential on the table when you failed to show up and do the work. Think about it.
And finally…. if you did something and desired to be paid for it again and again, potentially earning big bux for doing nothing after the original work in question, then that is indeed potential income. The only problem is, you can’t count on any of that potential to be realized until it actually shows up in your wallet.
The saving grace here is, the IRS can’t ding you for something unforeseen. Even they can’t make people buy your work product, thus giving you an actual income figure. (But you also can’t claim a loss if you fail to earn anything beyond the initial sale.)
As to potential energy, I suggest that you engage a remedial course of science, preferably in the 7th or 8th grade range.
Re:
I thought potential energy is stored energy. Like how water energy storage works.
But yeah, potential income is not income.
I’m sure at least one of these companies has run the numbers and can tell him that the expected return on investment is $0.05 per $1.00 invested and that they would rather advertise in locations where the return is more than the money spent advertising.
Re:
I think the short-term return of investment would be larger: after all, advertising to the gullible is bound to be effective.
The problem is that as a long-term strategy, advertising and selling your products to people versed in creating conspiracy theories, fantasizing reasons for grievances, being on revenge and retribution trips and blaming everybody but themselves for any mistakes they make while demanding every kind of mollycoddling and special treatment or they’ll badmouth you is not a good strategy for longterm revenue perspectives.
Toxic customers are bad business, business you don’t want in the first place. So why advertise at places bound to attract them?
I can’t, for the life of me, explain why the advertising parasites don’t want to be associated with violent insurrectionist bigots who want to violently push conspiracy theories/white supremacy, violently weaponize the Holocaust, and are chomping at the bit to murder anyone who does not want to fall in lockstep with their violent views.
Gee, I suppose I may be preaching to the choir here, but I really, really can’t tell why no decent adman wants to be associated with those fine folk at all!
Re:
Even parasites have SOME scruples.
Re: Re:
It’s not so much that they have scruples, rather it’s that they have even the barest glimmer of business sense that tells them adverting on toxic platforms filled with delusional and/or toxic people will cost them more long-term than they stand to get even short-term.
Re: Re: Re:
If you’re gullible enough to believe in the utter nonsense from the whole MAGAsphere then you’re probably gullible enough to get swindled by one of many scams that are far better thought out than what Trump’s trying to sell, and if you stuck with Trump for what would be a period of time that is longer than the standard statute of limitations, well, it’s at least a great way to get some short term gain. It’s not sustainable, but for first movers you can scam quite a bit of money running ads on their platform.
Re: Re: Re:2
Consider the following: One of the largest segments of Trump’s voter base (if not the largest segment outright) consists of conservative Christians—evangelicals in particular. Do with that information what you will.
Re: Re: Re:2
Veles, Macedonia, is well aware.
Can the government do that?
I’ll admit I’m not an expert in anti-trust law, but can the government really tell companies where they can and can’t advertise?
If a company thinks advertising on a certain platform won’t give them good results, why should the government tell them what do to?
And as always, I’d still like to heat these right-wing viewpoints that are being “censored”? Is it because they talk about conspiracy theories? Do they say Trump won the 2020 election?
Come on, let’s hear the topics that sites don’t want us to know about.
Re:
I’ll admit I’m not a First Amendment Lawyer (or a lawyer, at that), but well…
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW…
I mean, it’s the first five words of the First Amendment. The government can’t simply tell where advertisers can and cannot spend their money is a reasonable assumption here.
And it’s also a reasonable assumption that the government should not be trying to promote companies as well.
Re: Re:
The Constitution is not a magic spell. They will do as much as our Circle of Clerics allow them, and then they will go even farther.
Re: Re:
We were talking about Jim Jordan. That’s not a context for mentioning “reasonable assumptions”. Can we get back on-topic? On second thought, better drop that subject. In a volcano.
Maybe Iceland has comparatively sane politicians in contrast to the U.S. since they have no shortage of volcanoes?
Just thinking loud.
Re: Re: Re:
Politicians in volcanoes you say?
Re: Re:
The Supreme Court decided ages ago that commercial speech is not as protected as non-commercial speech is. That is why (for example) the government was allowed to compel cigarette companies to put warning labels on cigarette packs, why milk producers are forced to help pay for the “Got Milk?” campaign, etc.
So who knows? I’m sure Alito and Thomas would be happy to allow a right-wing-advertising mandate, but I doubt they’d find three other justics to agree.
Re: Re: Re:
Wrong, on so many counts.
First, commercial speech is not so much different from any other kind, but there is a component of treating the potential consumer with fairness (Truth In Advertising, for starters), and not using anti-trust activities to squelch any competition.
Second, when it comes to Public Heath, the Courts have long held that 1A can indeed be “bent” to accommodate warnings directly tied to public health concerns. Cigarettes are a good example, but California took it too far with Prop 65 warnings on literally everything made by any kind of machine from a bicycle pump on upwards. Sad that no one has challenged that back into the Stone Age.
Third, about that Got Milk campaign… what’ve you been smoking? Producers aren’t forced to fund this, they want to fund it, all of it – it’s called Marketing, plain and simple. Anyone who needs the government to tell them that they have to sell their product, they’re in the wrong business.
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s not bending the First Amendment to require health warnings because it was correcting speech that wasn’t protected by the 1st Amendment, such as deceptive advertising. It was in response to decades of cigarette companies marketing smoking as healthy, employing doctors to endorse their products, pretending filters made them safe, issuing falsified medical studies, etc.
Re: Re: Re:3
The rationale behind the Lanham Act and the relevant provisions on advertising is more about fraud than pure speech. That’s why there is a “pure puffery” defense if raised in court, and only competitors have a cause of action, not consumers. You can make all sorts of false assertions in advertising, but faking scientifically refutable data to sell a product is problematic gives rise to a civil cause of action not as a speech restriction, but as an act of fraud for the purpose of financial gain.
Re: Re: Re:2
The “Got Milk” campaign is funded by the California Milk Advisory Board, a quasi-governmental nonprofit all milk producers are required to pay into. It doesn’t matter if you think marketing milk is a waste of money or not. Also, being compelled to speak is a 1A violation, normally, even if you agree with the speech in question. If Congress passed a law saying “all Americans are required to say ‘Feeding living children into wood chippers is seldom, if ever, a good idea” that would still violate the first amendment even though you would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagreed with it.
Secondly, while the goal of commercial speech restrictions IS, ostensibly, protecting the customer, that doesn’t change the fact that the speech is restricted in ways private speech isn’t. If I want to tell someone about the perceived benefits or dangers of something, I am free to do so in the manner I think is best. Corporations are not; they must, in many cases, have their speech pre-cleared by the government.
Finally, the whole “it is ok to regulate corporate speech because the public must be protected” thing has no objective outer limit. Any speech has some potential negative impact on somebody. All sorts of corporate speech restrictions can be put in place based on the flimsiest “protecting the public” rationalizations — all it takes is a friendly judge and a regulator with an axe to grind.
So, like I said, I don’t think compelled advertising on Truth Social would pass muster, but I can see it getting a couple of SCOTUS votes from the more anti-tech/anti-speech types.
Re: Re: Re:3
Well of course hardly anyone would disagree with that statement. Wood goes in wood chippers, children go in children chippers. Use the right tool for the job, people!
Re: Re: Re:3
Citations, please. Multiple ones, not just the odd one-off from left field.
Otherwise, it’s the Toom1275 description for you.
Oh, and… California Milk Advisory Board? You mean that Prop 65 wasn’t enough self-degradation for them, they had double down on proving that they’ve been out in the sun far too long? Jesus H. Christ on a jumped-up Pogo stick…..
Re: Re: Re:3
While technically true, that doesn’t change the fact that the milk producers want to fund it as it helps them make more sales, so it’s not like they really needed any coercion. It’s not clear that any have even tried to object to or defy that requirement, so its constitutionality has never been tested. Plus, they helped lobby for the thing in the first place, so it’s basically saying that they agree to pay the quasi-governmental body to do ads for their products.
More importantly, I don’t even see how it’s even a 1A issue. They aren’t being required to print, speak, host, or otherwise publish any speech, nor are they being prohibited from printing, speaking, hosting, or otherwise publishing any speech; they’re just paying money to fund a government-run non-profit ad campaign, which is basically just a form of taxation. Since the producers’ speech (or ability to host speech) isn’t restrained, nor are they being forced to say or host anything, this isn’t even about speech in the first place.
But the restrictions are more limited than you suggest, and there is little to no appetite within the Supreme Court to expand that.
Corporations generally do not have to have their speech pre-cleared by the government. I have no idea where you got that idea from. To my knowledge, outside of cases where it’s imposed as part of a judgment or settlement or something (so after violating some regulation(s) and either going through due process or coming to an agreement with regulators, and not limited to commercial entities), there aren’t really any cases where corporations have to have their speech pre-cleared by the government in the US outside of cases where the corporation is being employed by the government to do something and the speech is related to that, similar to a NDA.
I seriously have no idea where you got this idea of commercial speech requiring pre-clearance.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
So you’re saying that milk producers willingly funded a campaign falsely alleging that milk consumption causes autism? That’s like saying vaccine producers willingly funded Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 fraudulent study,
Re: Re: Re:5
Other-wording is bad, mmkay..
On top of that you are confusing the Got Milk? campaign with PETA’s got autism? campaign that was based on two extremely bad studies which promulgated the idea that avoiding dairy-products was a treatment against autism.
Re: Re: Re:
To a point, but the limitations for commercial speech pretty much solely involve anticompetitive practices, fraud, health & safety that is undeniable, licensing, trademark, or the “fair use” defense to copyright infringement, along with compliance with administrative things or cases involving a fiduciary duty.
Because a) that involved an incontrovertibly true fact and b) was intended to protect public health. It satisfies even fairly strict standards for constitutionality.
Actually, there is no law or regulation that requires milk producers to help pay for the “God Milk?” campaign. Large milk producers are not only more than happy for the “Got Milk?” campaign, many were responsible (at least in part) for its creation.
Think about it: It’s a massive advertisement for their product that none of them have to pay for the entirety of. It is in their own best interests to help ensure its continuation and success.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
So you’re saying that milk producers willingly funded a campaign falsely alleging that milk consumption causes autism and are partly responsible for its creation? That’s like saying vaccine producers willingly funded Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent 1998 study and are partly responsible for the destruction of public health that resulted.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
You do know that PETA funded the “Got Milk?” campaign to try and do for milk what Andrew Wakefield did for public health, right?
Re: Re: Re:2
No, PETA funded the “got autism?” campaign in 2008. The “got milk?” campaign was funded and launched in 1993 by the California Milk Processor Board.
How the fuck can you confuse the two?? Too much vegan diet?
Re: Re: Re:3
If you know the potential effects of a vegan diet, that suggests you yourself are vegan. Therefore, you are a hypocrite.
Re:
There’s a big difference between “Can it do that?” and “Is it supposed to be able to do that?”
The answer to the latter question is “no.” We’ll find out what the answer to the former question is.
Re: Re:
I am also not an anti-trust expert, but I took a quick look at the US Code and it appeared to me that the law generally applies to things a company or group of companies could do to unlawfully affect competitors.
While there are a couple of social media companies listed among the members of GARM, the vast majority of its members are NOT social media and therefore I struggle to see how antitrust laws apply.
Also, ExTwitter is listed as a GARM member. They’re colluding against themselves?
Re: Re: Re:
I mean…
Re:
Same answer in both cases – the First Amendment absolutely prohibits this kind of thing. If Jordan attempts to subpoena anyone over this, any decent lawyer will fire back a letter reminding him of this “tiny detail”, and then laugh in his face.
Or they may decide to show up in response, and then laugh in his face on the record, with video recorded. For posterity, you understand.
Re: Re:
I mean, there are some restrictions on when and where they can advertise; for example, putting cigarette ads in kids’ shows is now prohibited, and some time-and-place restrictions can be placed on any speech, not just advertisements.
That said, there is no such restriction on when and where they can choose to not advertise.
Re: Jim Jordan Demands... etc
John85851,
I have a hunch that the letter Jordan sent was a veiled threat- a la, “if you knew what was good for you, you’d spend advertising dollars at Truth Social. It sure wouldn’t be good for your company if we had to launch an anti-trust investigation on you.”
What a strange pro-business attitude, forcing companies to throw good money after bad.
Does he really intend to force making investment decisions for them?
As usual Gym is bass ackwards, inside out and upside down, just like the MAGAt movement.
This is why satire is dead.
Re:
I’ve said for a few years that the hardest job in the world must be writing for The Onion. You come up with a ridiculous piece of hilarious satire, then just before you submit your manuscript you look at the news and see something way more ridiculous happening in real life…
Re: Re:
These days they’re probably being told to read 50 AI generated articles to post the five “funniest” and not writing anything at all.
The only official response I’d like to see from these companies is: “None of your fucking business.”
Re:
Mine would be a copy of the congressional subpoena he ignored, wrapped in article after article about the molestation he assisted in covering up.
With a hand written note: “Your move, Gym”
Re: Re:
Are we sure either of those is easy enough for Jim to understand? Perhaps “Ur website is teh suxorz, LOL.” would be more on his level?
Re: Re: Re:
On Jim Jordan’s level are fire and brimstone and local call rates to Putin.
Because they can’t compete with gold Reagan coins, Trump Bibles, fake Trump money, pre-opened prepper buckets, black rifle coffee, murder weapon sweep stakes and nazi themed vitamins for those sweet, sweet MAGA views.
I wonder if this source will get arrested as well?
So Jim Jordan is a nazi. Time to try the traitors.
Jordan
“They’re just responding with common sense…”
That’s the problem. Jordan heard of this common sense thing one time and is against it. Well, is against it until someone pays him to say otherwise. In his business and in his home market, any sense, common or otherwise, is seen as a negative.
Re:
Actually, the term ‘common sense’ is a misnomer, as the likes of Hillary Clinton and Jim Jordan keep proving every day. In fact, the only two politicians with good sense I can name are Democrat Ron Wyden and Republican Chris Cox.
Christ on a fucking bike, that man truly is an utter waste of chemical bonds.´
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Please talk like an intelligent person..
Please try to control the offensive teenage language of effing this or effing that…
Re: Re:
The real world must be very difficult to navigate for you. I have no trouble imagining you’re in a constant state of moral panic.
Fuck off, if you aren’t grown enough to handle so much as reading a word you’ve arbitrarily deemed too ‘bad’ to use.
Re: Re:
We’re fucking adults here, we don’t need to censor or language for shitheads with a weak constitution.
Re: Re:
You can let go of your pearls now.
Re: Re:
lol. Get fucked.
Re: Re:
I take it you’re new here.
This is a site meant for adults (or at least older teens), and the vast majority of readers tend to be in that demographic. As such, the general assumption is that we are mature enough adults to handle foul language, so most of us see no need to restrain ourselves as though children our watching.
Also, many users here (and most of the writers) are rather… irreverent, so some swearing is to be expected.
At any rate, swearing is rather common on this site, especially in the comments, and there are no rules (formal or informal, written or unwritten) that ban such a thing or even really discourage it. I suggest you get used to it or ignore it unless and until it becomes more abusive.
This gives me an idea...
…for something that I should advertise on Truth Social. It’s the perfect product. And I’m certain that Jim Jordan will have no objections.
It’s the “Jim Jordan Special Mark III Combination Blindfold and Earplug Set”, which magically prevents the wearer from seeing or hearing any sexual assaults that might be happening nearby.
But wait! There’s more! Act now and we’ll throw in a pair of these remarkable Jim Jordan Sycophant Kneepads, perfect for those occasions when you need to submissively and obediently drop to your knees and open your mouth to service your dear fascist leader.
This deal won’t last long, so act now, act now, act now!!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
I believe it was the Dems on their knees servicing their boss in the Senate. He was fired already
Re: Re:
Links or it didn’t happen.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Citations are for kids, look it up yourself
Re: Re: Re:2
Said the liar..
Re: Re: Re:3
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/09/plagiarism-is-fine/
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
A gay sex scandal ignited the group chats of many a D.C. denizen in recent days in regards to a video that allegedly depicts a male Democratic Senate staffer having sex with another man in a Senate hearing room. The staffer, who worked for Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, is no longer a Senate employee.
Re: Re: Re:5
So, some Democratic staffer—who no longer works for the Senate—was discovered having sex with another man (who, based on the fact that nothing about him is detailed, wasn’t a Senator or even another staffer) where he shouldn’t be.
I’m not sure how that proves that multiple Democrats were servicing their boss in the Senate. One Democratic staffer serviced an unknown man who doesn’t appear to work at the Senate in any capacity.
Sure, this was wrong of that guy (public indecency), but it doesn’t fit the claim. 1 Democratic staffer ≠ “Dems”, and an unknown man ≠ “their boss”.
Re: Re: Re:6
So. Did you see the comment I was responding to?
Re: Re: Re:6
One AC is not another. I think the person you responded to may have been genuine, based on their use of the word “allegedly”.
Re: Re: Re:5
LOL
Brings the fax, that were asked for, and you hide it
LOL
Re: Re: Re:4
I fail to see the relevance.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
I’m not surprised.
Re: Re: Re:2
You made the claim. It’s not our job to do research to try to prove your claim.
If you don’t want to prove it, fine. In that case, we have no reason to believe you. Hitchen’s Razor applies here.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Techdirt claims otherwise.
Re: Re:
How many times you watch that video bro?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
I didn’t. Nor am I searching for gay porn for the rest of you. You want to see it, look for yourself.
P&G: The anti-conservative company.
L’MAO.
You guys are missing the point
This isn’t about actually making advertisers do something. I doubt Jordan gives a rat’s younger sister’s ass about who advertises on Truth Social.
This is about manufacturing victimhood and outrage. Trump-era Republican politics are entirely based around appealing to their political base’s deranged belief that nefarious forces are victimizing said base. Illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, “elites”, Muslims, colleges, social media, yadda yadda yadda.
It doesn’t actually matter, to Jordan, if advertisers actually hate conservatives or if advertisers can be forced to advertise on conservative platforms. What matters is that the people who vote for Jordan want to believe that advertisers hate conservatives, and like the idea of trying to punish them for that.
Re:
I think it’s more to send a signal that if corporations don’t funnel even more money direct to republicans and the trump family and publicly endorse them, they:re fully prepared to start weaponising the government to force them to the moment Republicans have the Whitehouse.
Re: yeah probably
But I’m just waiting for those morons to organize a boycott of advertisers who aren’t willing to pay them their grift.
Re: Re:
While continuing to whine about the evils of ‘cancel culture’, just to really hammer the hypocrisy home.
I think abortion clinics should advertise on “Truth” Social. The more we can convince the people who use it to avoid reproducing, the better.
Re: if only...
If I had a zillion dollars, I’d flood the site with ads saying EVERYTHING HERE IS A LIE and YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS. I wonder if my rights to free speech (and to spend my money as I see fit) would be respected.
Yet again, they don’t care about “free speech”. They just want an audience, and are confused about how popular they are. So, they interpret people not wanting to be near them as censorship.
Remember when a sitting member of Congress wouldn’t violate the Constitution so blatantly… good times.
In a functioning democracy he should be facing censure for all of the performative bullshit & wasting our tax dollars on the conservative victimhood tour.
Hes been on faux news like 600 times since he’s been in office… he has pitched 0 bills. I guess he cares about his constituents and the Constitution as much as he does wrestlers.
Re:
Remembers the Alien and Sedition Acts
No?
Because of the misnomer that is its name, Jim. It can’t handle the truth, and is therefore antisocial.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Whoa! This website is really cool.. real content..
I’m glad to see you..
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Both Sides DON'T
FTA: “That’s not to say there isn’t some level of nonsense and conspiracy thinking at the other end of the spectrum, because there is.”
CITATIONS PLEASE.
Stop sucking that Both Sides dick, son. It ain’t right.
Re:
Jesus fucking Christ, this is the exact opposite of both sidererism as he’s point out that one of two groups is significantly worse that than the other.
But, here are the left wing conspiracy theories that come to mind.
https://www.commoncause.org/resource/u-s-constitution-threatened-as-article-v-convention-movement-nears-success/
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42195513
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders
Re: Re:
Yeah, left-leaning conspiracy theories aren’t exactly on the same level as Pizzagate or QAnon, and that’s partly because left-leaning media is built to detect and weed out factually empty bullshit as it heads to more centrist media. That isn’t to say left-leaning conspiracy theories don’t make it to the center, but it happens far less often than with right-leaning conspiracy theories—and that’s because the incentives in right-wing media make coddling bullshit worth more than weeding it out. Hell, left-leaning conspiracy theories are probably more likely to be factual than fictional; look at COINTELPRO as an example.
Re: Re: Re:
Additionally, lefty conspiracy theories tend to not shout to the rooftops in ALL CAPS, so they don’t get “above the fold” kinds of attention from any level of media. Contrast that to righties (should be some way to call them “wrongies”) who simply can’t speak with an indoor voice. My kids know better, why can’t Republican adults? (Alleged adults… my mind is not yet made up about that proposition.)
Jim Jordan working to prop up Trump truth soc grift
I wonder how much DJT (truth social) stock Jim Jordan owns?
Or what sort of quid pro quo he’ll receive from others that do?
Re:
Am I correct in my understanding that congressional members are not disallowed from insider trading?
Does this also mean they are not disallowed from the use of government resources and facilities for the promotion of personal gain?
Re: Re:
Am I correct in my understanding that congressional members are not disallowed from insider trading?
You are incorrect, congressional members are just as dissallowed from insider trading as anyone else.
It’s just that “insider trading” refers to a much, much narrower set of activities then you probably think it does.
well I was going to advertise but I'm not going to now
These putzes still don’t get it. On social media, the advertiser is the customer. The customer is always right. If the customer won’t buy your wares, you need to make and sell different wares.
Social media wares are: users and content. Ban the bad users who make the bad content, attract the good users who make the good content. Bad and good of course are defined by the customers. Couldn’t be simpler.
Re:
His next trick will be to threaten investigations of everyone who doesn’t buy groceries at Piggly Wiggly.
First, the SEC should investigate whether Jordan, or any in his circle of crime holds DJT. That’s stock manipulation pure and simple.
Little Jim is playing to an audience of one orange monstrous ego.
Ironically, I think the rightwing explosion of conspiracy theories during the Trump/COVID years actually acted as a vaccination of sorts against conspiracy theories for the left. During the process of disproving their bullshit, a lot of granola people I know abandoned their pseudo naturalist tendencies. Anecdotally.
I also think the idea that the structure of the rightwing media businesses do tend to drive more conspiracies, and mainline more of them, is sound. The studies I saw show that at the individual level, left/right aren’t inherently more immune to conspiracies. But it’s pretty clear at the macro level that the GOP has basically embraced everything.
Re:
“a lot of granola people I know abandoned their pseudo naturalist tendencies. Anecdotally.”
The ones that didn’t double down and end up swinging wildly right-wing, yeah. Basically only two ways out of that situation in my experience.
Re: Re:
Oh yeah. Very much. One in particular spent the entirety of covid wandering off into lala antivaxer land. Then, when all th dist settled, she was surprised to find out that a bunch of her new ‘friends’ were nazis and such.
Theres a risk of damage to your brand if it appears next to extreme content ot content that might be racist or promote false conspiracy theorys,
It’s not as if there’s not 100s of safe places to place ads on that are moderated and ban extreme content that might be offensive to minority’s
So Gym is weaponizing the government to prove that the ‘deep state’ and ‘big tech’ are weaponizing the government. The party of projection, accuse others for that which you do. All you need is a racist, originalist, xenophobic base of people in a nation and sadly history show us that this type of propaganda has worked equally well for fascists and communists because in any society those people exist.
Re:
“It’s okay when we do it” has been Republican mantra for decades.
Jim Jordan
Jim Jordan is an idiot. Hey, Jim, maybe P&G should pull major distribution center out of Ohio.
Re:
Not stupid, corrupt, as I’ve no doubt that he knows exactly what he’s doing here with the primary goal of riling up the MAGAts by adding fuel to their persecution complex/fetish.
Re: Re:
? by riling up the MAGAts by adding fuel to their persecution complex/fetish.
Sure, but after nearly a decade of being told “we’re gonna to save you from them sumbitch persecutin’ libs!”, and such saving hasn’t happened in all that time, it won’t be much longer before many Red voters start smelling coffee instead of covfefe, and vote accordingly.
Re: Re: Re:
While it would be nice to think so I think you’re underestimating the level of indoctrination they’ve been exposed to.
You have to remember that they’ve been constantly told that every bad thing that is or even might happen is the fault of The Other(trans, gays, jews, liberals…), so clearly if the Real ‘Muricans haven’t ‘saved them’ from such fiends it’s not because the threat isn’t real or their stalwart defenders aren’t actually interested in ‘saving’ them and are just using fearmongering to control and manipulate them, rather it’s because the threat is even worse than they thought and it’s only by casting their support and votes on the side of Real ‘Muricans(read: anti-americans) that they’ll be protected from The Other who is gunna get them any day now.
Now, this is not to say that it’s a lost cause or that there’s no point in trying to shake lose some of the saner ones(or more effectively keep them from getting new converts) by rubbing their faces in reality and pointing out the hypocrisy and delusions they’re currently supporting or considering supporting, merely that when dealing with cultists who’ve bought into the cult of ‘alternative facts’ ‘what you’re saying/believing in has nothing to do with demonstrable reality’ becomes a lot less effective and convincing than it should be.
Has Jim considered looking into why people didn’t buy Trump brand steaks? Surely it was some sort of conspiracy by the leftist vegetarians.
Odd...
They complain when the free market works as it should…?
While they’re at it, demand to know why nobody will buy a My-Pillow.
Major Ad Companies Explain Why They Won’t Advertise On Truth Social
“None of our clients are in the business of selling TruckNutz, coal-rolling fittings, tacky gold sneakers, Bibles with “not” omitted from the Sixth through Eights Commandments, or any other product likely to appeal to the ‘Truth Social’ demographic.”
Jim Jordan
Apparently, “Trump Derangement Syndrome” works both ways.