Global geopolitics

(Video Credit: Bloomberg)

What began as claims of concern for “brand safety” evolved into direct influence over moderation policies. The issue is not that advertisers have concerns; it’s that they acted in concert to financially punish a platform for not aligning with their preferred content rules. This is not accountability. It is economic leverage used to shape public discourse without transparency or consent from users.

The outcome of this case carries massive implications. If the court rules in favor of X, the companies involved could be forced to pay treble damages, potentially billions of dollars. That ruling would also set a precedent limiting corporate coordination designed to manipulate the content decisions of independent platforms. If the court rules against X, it would give corporations a legal green light to continue using their ad budgets as a tool to influence, restrict, or control online speech across the board.

This case goes to the heart of who holds power over the digital public square. It pits concentrated financial muscle against the independence of digital platforms. It raises serious questions about whether a small group of companies, acting together and behind the scenes, should have the ability to determine what information is visible to hundreds of millions of people.

The shutdown of GARM in August 2024, following exposure of its activities, signals just how serious the allegations are. The organisation claimed the closure was due to “misconstrued” motives, but the timing speaks for itself. GARM functioned as more than a trade group; it operated as a mechanism for collective action, steering platform behavior without public accountability.

This lawsuit forces a long-overdue confrontation with a system in which advertising dollars are wielded not just to promote products, but to dictate terms. The idea that a handful of brands can determine acceptable content for global users, without public oversight, without democratic input, is not a sustainable model for free speech or open platforms.

What’s at stake is not just the financial health of one company, but the future structure of digital communication. If corporate ad coordination becomes the standard tool for policing platforms, then editorial control will effectively belong to the highest bidder. That creates a closed ecosystem, not an open internet.

The outcome of Musk’s legal battle will shape the rules of engagement between platforms and advertisers for years to come. It will determine whether digital platforms can operate independently, or whether they will be forced into alignment with the values and preferences of the largest corporate advertisers. The stakes are high. This is not just about revenue. It is about control.

On the flipside, I am not alone, many users, like yourselves, also now see that these major online platforms as part of the problem, tightening control over speech behind the banner of fighting “misinformation.” My own X account is shadow banned, the reach has been throttled, and doesn’t grow. I therefore, like many of you, point to shadow-banning that throttles posts without notice, automated takedowns with no real appeal process, third-party “fact checks” that mislabel legitimate debate, doxing of dissident voices, vague and shifting community rules written in private, and sudden account locks or permanent bans that silence people overnight. These tactics operate out of public view yet shape what billions can read or say, fueling distrust in the very services that claim to protect open dialogue. No one is dealing with that problem.

All my analyses or reports are free to read, thanks to the generosity of my readers. Independent journalism nonetheless requires investment, so if you value this article or any others, please consider sharing, or even becoming a paid subscriber. Your support is always gratefully received, and will never be forgotten. To buy me a coffee or two, please click this link.

buymeacoffee.com/ggtv