See our companion piece about the DOJ vs Google that goes hand in hand with this topic.
This story in particular is a big win for the Laggin’ Out community, despite its very near borderline closeness to a politically charged topic. It is our belief within the ranks of Laggin’ Out that free speech is king, both on the internet, and in the wide open world.
Within the last four days, X owner, Elon Musk, announced that he was going to be joining the antitrust lawsuit, alongside Rumble, against GARM, the WFA, and several named companies. “What is GARM, and the WFA,” I hear you ask? Funny story, GARM is an advertising network that markets itself as a non-profit organization that happens to control 90 cents of every advertising dollar spent on the internet. GARM also happens to stand for “The Global Alliance for Responsible Media.” AKA, “if we deem your media to be publicly dangerous, we will recommend companies not do ad spends for your platform.”
Now, it may seem like that is a bold claim to make, but when the evidence that was presented came to light the allegations appear to be pretty air-tight. The Judiciary Committee reported communications between GARM’s top leadership:
GARM was a global initiative of various companies, formed in 2019, under the World Federation of Advertising (WFA). Its goal being to become the arbiter of defining “harmful and sensitive content” by regulating ad placement, all under the guise of “brand safety.” Doing so by way of withholding compensation from ad-share and ad-revenue.
The Judiciary Committee’s report directly cites words from Rob Rackowitz that paints him in an anti-American light, as he clearly spurns freedom of speech:
Shortly after Elon Musk purchased Twitter, now X, GARM directly targeted them. The report shows that the advertising cabal directed their members, including corporate juggernauts such as Coca-Cola and Unilever, to stop all paid advertisements with X. This represents a combined control of 90% of global advertising dollars. Later, GARM is quoted to be bragging about the fact that Twitter has lost “80% of their forecasted revenue.”
GARM’s influence even spread as far as to add pressure to Spotify over the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast. They cite his comments and opinions pertaining to young and healthy individuals not being as susceptible to the COVID virus, and therefore not requiring the vaccine to add to their survivability. In a private email, Rakowitz stated a clear understanding that the threats they used against Spotify “gets us into hot water by way of anticompetitive and collusive behaviors.”
The report says, “Relevant case law suggests that GARM likely violated federal antitrust laws…The high market share of GARM and its members in advertising campaigns and spending, combined with the direct evidence of demonetizing certain viewpoints to limit consumer choice, meet the initial burden of demonstrating harm to consumers.”
This being the case that came to light on Wednesday, come Thursday, it was determined by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), a subsidiary of the World Economic Forum, that they were going to disband GARM. All the while, their spokesperson continued to claim that all of their activities were lawful, and only acting in public interests.
Interestingly enough, in the interest of free speech, one can’t help but disagree. When the money is cut off, and means of survival is removed, both in the corporate world and the human world. This stifles competition and opposing viewpoints–creating, at its fundamental core, a monopolistic situation in conjunction with bold and blatant censorship, seemingly of one side of the political spectrum. Laggin’ Out will continue to keep an eye on this case to report more, once further updates are brought to light. This is one messy case, especially when one of the champions of the WEF, Linda Yakarino, has spoken out against the WEF/GARM over this situation.
Leave a Reply