Let’s Get Ready to Rumble!
X and Rumble punch back at Massive Censorship Cartel.
Have you ever wondered why wildly-popular TV and Internet sites get virtually no advertising from the world’s largest advertisers?
The answer is almost-certainly because conservative or truth-seeking media sites are boycotted by these companies and their advertising agencies.
In potentially one of the most important developments of recent years, Elon Musk and Rumble have filed a lawsuit against this “massive … advertising cartel.”
Per the lawsuit, this alleged cartel has conspired and colluded to intentionally cause great economic harm to pro-free speech media organizations by refusing to place advertising with these firms.
Per the lawsuit, the advertising boycotts were/are allegedly organized by the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) with an assist from companies like NewsGuard, which purport to protect companies from placing ads that publish “harmful disinformation.”
I picked up on this years ago …
Readers of this newsletter might remember articles I’ve written, which commented on the oddity of ultra-popular programs like “Tucker Carlson Tonight” receiving no advertising support from well-known consumer brands.
With “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” the No. 1-rated primetime news program in North America, the only well-known advertiser that routinely placed commercials in this program was Mike Lindell’s My Pillow (a company that has clearly been punished for this business decision). Almost every other ad on now-fired Tucker’s show seemed like an info-commercial one might see at 3 a.m.
Twitter, now known as X, is the best-known example of a social media company that generates billions of page views every month, but attracts virtually no advertising support from Proctor and Gamble, Coca Cola, Pepsi Co, GM, Sara Lee, etc.
Conversely, media giants that do promote the authorized narratives - like Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc - are booking billions of dollars in advertising spends and their stock prices remain in the stratosphere.
The excerpts at the bottom of this article are from a news story at Zero Hedge, which is one of the most heavily-trafficked websites in the country - a site that rarely if ever runs a display ad from a well-known company.
It’s virtually impossible to imagine a scenario where thousands of marketing executives of well-known brands all independently decided to boycott sites that are extremely popular with their regular customers or potential customers. This could only happen if there was a coordinated boycott and/or certain sites had been “black-listed.”
Dr. Malone brought GARM to my attention …
In a recent article, Substacker Robert Malone also highlighted this apparent conspiracy. Malone noted that since these companies are perfectly fine with boycotting sites popular with vast numbers of Americans, maybe Americans would consider boycotting their companies and products as well.
The bottom-line seems to be that a cross-section of global companies have decided - in unison - that they will not advertise with media companies that don’t trumpet the Establishment’s “authorized narratives” (for example, on every Covid topic).
In my opinion, it would indeed be fair and proper for consumers to boycott companies that show such disdain for the concept of free speech.
While I’m overjoyed to see that Elon Musk, X and Rumble are fighting back in the court of law, I must admit I’m not confident this much-warranted lawsuit will prevail and end this practice.
If the Courts are fully captured like many of us imagine, the lawsuits will probably be thrown out.
This, again, leaves only consumer boycotts to, perhaps, force these companies to reverse their group-thinking Big Brother policies. (It is nice to see Republican members of Congress, belatedly, highlighting this travesty).
It’s certainly not paranoia on Musk’s part to recognize the concerted effort to put X out of business.
And, as Musk notes, it’s not just his massive social media company that’s being harmed; It’s virtually every media company or media figure (myself included) who publishes content that challenges myriad authorized narratives.
A few excerpts from Zero Hedge’s important story:
Headline: "Rumble Joins X In Massive Lawsuit Against 'Advertising Cartel'
“Social media platform X has filed a lawsuit against an 'advertising cartel' who have colluded to control online speech, as revealed on last month by an interim staff report released by the House Judiciary Committee.
“In a Tuesday filing against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and several members - including CVS Health, Mars, Orsted and Unilever, X alleges that the group abused its influence over marketers and ad agencies to unfairly discriminate against X, prompting an ad boycott.
"These actions were all against the unilateral self-interest of the advertisers; they made economic sense only in furtherance of a conspiracy performed in the confidence that competing advertisers were doing the same," reads the complaint.
“Shortly after lawsuit was filed, video-sharing platform Rumble joined the lawsuit.
“The conspiracy centers around an initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), created by the WFA, that established arbitrary standards for the content on digital platforms where its members may want to advertise. GARM used those one-size-fits-all standards to perpetrate an advertiser boycott against Rumble and other platforms. The suit also notes that GARM has vast reach since it counts the six largest ad agency holding companies among its members, including defendant WPP.
“The House report details a coordinated effort by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and its Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) initiative to demonetize and suppress disfavored content across the internet.”
As Zero Hedge’s “Tylers” opine:
“The threat against free speech today is being led by private groups seeking to exercise an unprecedented level of control (over) what people can read and discuss.”
Elon Musk tweet:
“Everyone who has been boycotted should file a lawsuit in every country they’ve been boycotted.”
Tweet from House GDP:
“GARM is powerful. Why? WFA members combine for almost $1 trillion annually in global ad spend.
“GARM includes every major ad agency holding company in its ranks, accounting for hundreds of ad agencies, and includes the world’s largest media buying agency in its leadership.”
Another tweet from HouseGDP:
“GARM members colluded to cut Twitter’s revenue after Elon Musk’s acquisition.
“As early as November of 2022, Danish energy company and GARM member Ørsted, contacted GARM to discuss “the Twitter situation” and “a possible boycott.”
This is a story all readers who care about fairness and free speech should not only read, but contact their elected representatives and demand this distasteful project end forthwith.
Economic and punitive damages should also be awarded to harmed individuals and companies.
If these companies and their ad agencies continue to boycott legitimate and popular media companies for ideological reasons, consumers should take note of what companies are doing this and remind these companies that those who buy their products are free to stop doing this.
Boycotts work both ways.
With very few exceptions, Substack authors depend on paid subscriptions and not advertising support to earn revenue. One suspects this small income source is also distasteful to the GARM cartel.
I’ve been on a boycotting craze these days and I’m finding it’s rather easy. We no longer buy products we used to and what do you know? We didn’t need them or their BS manufacturers and are doing just fine without them! It only sounds impossible but once you do it you realize it’s freeing.
I’ll boycott any product that censors or refuses to advertise on platforms that support alternative narratives. If that happens to be almost everything out there than so be it. I’m determined. I’d love a simpler life of less anyway. Amazon previously made well over $8000 per year from our family (lots in subscribe and save) and I’ve been slowly switching over to buy what we do from other places now, and going back to in-person shopping. Less convenient yes, but Bezos pi**ed me off majorly and I’m willing to be inconvenienced. We are now on track to give them less than $500 of business this year. That’s a huge loss to them from just one family. I did that with Target before too and they lost thousands from us in that year and I’ve never shopped with them again, short of an emergency stop maybe once a year at most. Lol It feels good. I sleep better at night with a smile on my face. 😊
I wish them all the best, but it's a little hard to get too excited when I'm still banned from Twitter.