Jim Jordan Demands Major Ad Companies Explain Why They Won’t Advertise On Truth Social
Jim Jordan, who heads the House Judiciary Committee and its subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government," continues to use weaponize the power of the federal government" to punish his enemies and support his friends. He's done this before. Many times before.
The latest seems particularly pathetic. You would have to be particularly wedded to weaponizing your power to think that a congressional committee has any role in figuring out why companies don't want to advertise on Truth Social or ExTwitter. But apparently, Jim Jordan has decided to be just that pathetic.
In the wake of Donald Trump's Truth Social going public and revealing that it's only earning around $1 million/quarter (i.e., a few hundred thousand dollars per month) because no one but scammers want to advertise on a small platform full of very clueless people, Jordan is pretending that it violates the law for big ad firms to not buy ads on sites dominated by conspiracy theorists and grifters.
He sent out letters to some of the largest advertisers, accusing them of antitrust violations for merely pointing out that for the sake of brand safety, companies should think carefully before putting their ads on sites frequented by conspiracy theory nutjobs.
Today, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)sent letters to the Chief Executive Officers of Diageo, GroupM, Mars, Incorporated, The Procter & Gamble Company, and Unilever, all members of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media's (GARM) Steer Team, requesting documents and communications as the Committee continues its oversightof the adequacy and enforcement of U.S. antitrust laws. The World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) through its GARMinitiative may be acting inconsistent with U.S. antitrust laws and congressional intent by coordinating GARM members'efforts to demonetize and eliminate disfavored content online.
Evidence obtained by the Committee suggests that GARM members, led by Steer Team members, are colluding to demonetize conservative platforms and voices. This coordination does not always revolve around brand safety"and harmful" content as GARM publicly claims, but instead the desire to censor conservative and other views that GARM members disfavor. Communications reviewed by the Committee directly connects the major corporations with these efforts.
So, first of all: bullshit. None of the companies want to censor conservative" views. It's just that, in the current moment, more conservatives believe in nonsense and conspiracy theories, in part due to efforts by nonsense peddlers like Jim Jordan. That's not to say there isn't some level of nonsense and conspiracy thinking at the other end of the spectrum, because there is. But it's become mainstream thinking in the modern GOP, with the help of people like Jordan.
And company ad strategy is never driven by ideology. It's always driven by what is best for the company's bottom line. Companies would happily advertise to conspiracy theorist nutjobs, of the like Jordan likes to cultivate, if it helps their bottom line. It's just that the companies have realized that most people are actually turned off by conspiracy theory nutjobs and get a negative impression of advertisers who cater to them.
Hence the brand safety."
The demands from Jordan are pretty silly.
Procter & Gamble's position on GARM's Steer Team places Procter & Gamble at the center of many of the concerning actions GARM and its members coordinated. Evidence the Committee has obtained suggests that GARM members, led by Steer Team members, are colluding to demonetize conservative platforms and voices. Further, this coordination does not always revolve around brand safety" and harmful" content as GARM publicly claims, but instead the desire to censor conservative and other views that GARM members disfavor. Communications the Committee has reviewed directly connects Procter & Gamble with these efforts.
Under the Sherman Act, these types of agreements may be illegal, and they require considering the adequacy of current law. The actions are concerning and warrant oversight because the harm that GARM causes to consumers is severe. For example, content creators lose revenue as advertising investment is steered away from" content that GARM disfavors. Less content is then available as platforms remove disfavored material, and as creators and publishers lose income.
Advertising companies speaking up and suggesting hey, maybe we shouldn't help fund websites pushing fascist ideology, or pushing the drinking of bleach as a healthcare solution" are not engaging in antitrust activity. They're just responding with common sense to the kind of nonsense coming out of the House these days.