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).
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.
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”.
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…”
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).
“Regular people”
https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2024/08/survey-one-in-four-americans-have-less-than-1000-in-savings/
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.
Here’s a Wikipedia list instead.
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.