Venice Film Festival boss quits X over Elon Musk statements; X sues marketing companies for alleged boycott of site
Venice Film Festival Artistic Director Alberto Barbera has announced that he is quitting the X platform in response to recent statements by Elon Musk.
“After the latest statements by the owner of Twitter (or rather of X, sorry), I have definitely lost the desire (already weakened) to remain on a platform, the objectives and purposes of which I no longer share,” Barbera wrote.
In a follow-up post, Barbera thanked his followers: “We will meet again perhaps elsewhere, in the spaces of the internet not yet enslaved to the ‘oddities’ of a single person.”
Barbera who is the latest high-profile figure to announce their departure from the X platform due to Elon Musk’s statements, however did not share which exact statements made by Musk had driven him to quit.
But, it is possible that the posts he’s referring to are the ones which have fanned the flames of unrest in the UK by spreading misinformation.
Indeed, the billionaire tech troll and X owner has spent the week stoking tensions in the UK – with one tweet stating that “civil war is inevitable”.
His comments which were criticised by Downing Street, but this has not deterred Musk from allowing misinformation to spread on X and continuing to argue that UK authorities are attempting to oppress free speech.
Critics have called for a travel ban against Musk for his series of tweets and repost to his millions of followers on X.
A Downing Street spokesperson stated that there was no justification for Musk’s comments, adding: “We’re talking about a minority of thugs that do not speak for Britain.”
Justice Minister Heidi Alexander stated: “Use of language such as a ‘civil war’ is in no way acceptable. We are seeing police officers being seriously injured, buildings set alight, and so I really do think that everyone who has a platform should be exercising their power responsibly.’’
Downing Street also reiterated that social media companies “can and should be doing more” to counter misleading or dangerous material hosted on their platforms.
But Elon Musk’s X/Twitter is suing a group of advertisers and major companies, accusing them of unlawfully agreeing to “boycott” the site.
It has filed a claim against the food giants Unilever and Mars, private healthcare company CVS Health, and renewable energy firm Orsted – along with a trade association called the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) – in a Texas court.
X claims they have deprived it of “billions of dollars” in revenue.
Legal experts say the case is unlikely to succeed as any collusion or agreement between companies will be hard to prove.
The lawsuit relates to the period in 2022 just after Mr Musk bought X, then known as Twitter, when advertising revenue dived.
Some companies had been wary of advertising on the platform as concerns rose that its new owner was not serious enough about removing harmful online content.
In the year after Mr Musk bought what was formerly Twitter, advertising revenue slumped by more than half.
X chief executive Linda Yaccarino said: “People are hurt when the marketplace of ideas is constricted. No small group of people should monopolise what gets monetised.”
She said the alleged “boycott” threatened the company’s “ability to thrive in the future”.
Mr Musk tweeted: “We tried being nice for 2 years and got nothing but empty words. Now, it is war.”
The WFA and the accused companies have not responded to requests for comment.
Legal experts have suggested the case is unlikely to succeed.
Christine Bartholomew, an antitrust expert and professor at University at Buffalo’s law school said X needed to show there was an “actual agreement to boycott joined by each advertiser”, which she said would be “no small hurdle” to prove.
Even if the case succeeds, the social media site cannot force companies to buy advertising space on the platform.
X is seeking unspecified damages and a court order against any continued efforts to conspire to withhold advertising spending.
In its lawsuit, X alleges that the accused firms unfairly withheld spending by following safety standards set out by a WFA initiative called Global Alliance for Responsible Media (Garm).
Garm’s stated aim is to “help the industry address the challenge of illegal or harmful content on digital media platforms and its monetisation via advertising”.
By doing this, X claims the companies acted against their own economic self-interests in a conspiracy against the platform that breached US antitrust, or competition, law.
Professor Rebecca Haw Allensworth, of Vanderbilt University, said the boycott “was really trying to make a statement about X’s policies and about their brands”.
X said in its lawsuit that it has applied brand-safety standards that are comparable to those of its competitors and “meet or exceed” those specified by Garm.
It also said X has become a “less effective competitor” in the sale of digital advertising.
The video-sharing company Rumble, which is favoured by right-wing influencers, made similar claims in a separate lawsuit against the World Federation of Advertisers on Tuesday.