• Phegan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nobody was conspiring, they just stopped advertising on a sinking ship.

    • Rampsquatch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except I doubt the conspired. I find it far more likely that they all saw what Muskrat was doing and didn’t want to do business with him, because he’s an ass.

      Also he told them to go fuck themselves, so yea.

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I rather doubt that buyer boycotts are actually illegal (with the exception of the anti Israel boycotts).

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          What monopoly? There are many platforms for ad placement. Boycotting one platform doesn’t make the rest of the market a monopoly.

            • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              By your logic, any group that organizes a boycott of any company is guilty of creating a monopoly. That is not how monopolies work, and it is also not illegal. It is a normal function of a free market.

        • mkwt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          A monopoly exists when there is only one seller of a product. A monopsony exists when there is only one buyer of a product.

          I’m really not sure that the Sherman Antitrust Act regulates artificial monopsonies the same way it does with monopolies