To me, inherently, if you're advertising on social media where anyone can type anything they damn well want, you are at risk of having your advert next to the words of a lunatic. Media Matters were clearly looking for a specific outcome so they engineered it. They deserve to get sued.
The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
- Status
To me, inherently, if you're advertising on social media where anyone can type anything they damn well want, you are at risk of having your advert next to the words of a lunatic. Media Matters were clearly looking for a specific outcome so they engineered it. They deserve to get sued.
Soldato
Times Roar87 has sided with Elon Musk : 6097
Times Roar87 has sided against Elon Musk : 0
Times Roar87 has sided against Elon Musk : 0
Soldato
You can just type this next time to save yourself some time
To Elon's butt bots X = free speech, Musk's 10 commandments = free speech. Though shall not withdraw advertising from X *NPC reeeeeeeee noises*
Funny how twitter wasn't targetted before Elon took over when CP was a major problem. Funny how they don't target instagram, facebook, tik tok etc where everything is wildly antisemitic. Tiktokers are even supporting osama bin laden at the moment...
Media Matters is an arm of the DNC, they have a long record of smearing people. They hate free speech because they can't control it
Last edited:
Caporegime
What "fake accounts"? They used accounts to browse Xitter, because - drumroll - that's what you have to do to view Xitter now! How do you expect them to view Xitter ads on content without viewing that content? As defences go, this is up there with Shaggy.
No, we're not. We're talking 50 ads impressions that Media Matters collected. Xitter have absolutely zero idea how many ads were placed next to objectionable content such as the stuff hailed as "the actual truth" by their public face.
I wouldn’t want anything advertised anywhere where there’s a chance it’ll be between someone asking why it isn’t ok to rape children and a 12 page essay on why race mixing is unchristian and worthy of the death sentence.
I don’t see it on Instagram, Reddit or Facebook, I do regularly on Twitter.
I didn’t see it any where near as much pre Elon. He’s genuinely changed twitter for the worse. Advertisers would be mad to spend any real money on it currently.
I would definitely report anything related to child rape if you saw that, did you do that and then witnessed that it didn't get removed? Or is this a hypothetical?
Soldato
if i write out why that is the case, will you be open to taking it in and have an honest non-biased reply to it? as i'm happy to explain why i feel that is the case now.
Caporegime
Elon deliberately rolled back the removal of objectionable content on Xitter. Then he removed large parts of the moderation team and told those left to moderate less. Then he removed identity protects across the site. Then he amplified anti-Semitic content describing it as "the actual truth".
It's not hard to see why advertisers don't want to be part of that.
There's objectionable content on every social media platform; but these platforms work hard to minimise it and ensure that ads don't appear next to borderline stuff. Xitter, under Elon, is going hard in the opposite direction.
You could even argue they only at least try and appear to have effective moderation. There's still a vast difference to what Xitter and Musk are championing.
Soldato
Bingo
I don't understand why this concept is so hard for people to understand. It's not complex at all, yet they can't get it.
Soldato
Ken White blog on Musk's latest whinge
My Free Speech Means You Have To Shut Up
Elon Musk and The Enduring Appeal of “Criticism is Censorship”
NOV 20
Now, surely part of that is a pitch — Musk wants you to pay for Twitter Premium (sorry, X premium) so you don’t have to see ads while you consume X’s content. But there’s a big dollop of sincerity too. Elon Musk genuinely feels that advertisers are a threat to free speech. Why? Because many advertisers fled X after Musk eagerly endorsed a bigot’s articulation of anti-Semitic theories, including that Jews promote hatred of whites and that Jews are importing “hordes of minorities.” Unsurprisingly, many companies aren’t cool with that. That’s a mix of corporate leadership thinking that such bigotry is bad business and thinking that it’s immoral.
Private companies have a First Amendment right to make such a decision. They have the right to express their values — and choose their marketing strategy — by deciding what kind of media content to promote. They have freedom of association to refrain from advertising on platforms that repulse their customers. Those rights are held both by the corporate advertisers and by the individuals making decisions for them. Elon Musk’s sullen yawp amounts to a claim that he has a right for companies too sponsor his speech, no matter what he says. That’s nonsense, both legally and philosophically.
It doesn’t stop there. Musk is also a fan of the theory that when he speaks, your criticism of him violates his rights. His latest articulation of this theory came after Media Matters published an article claiming that X is running ads for prominent companies next to bigoted content on X. Musk responded with an extravagant, mostly incoherent threat to file a “thermonuclear” lawsuit against Media Matters and its board and donors “to protect free speech,” whose criticism “seeks to undermine freedom of expression on our platform.”
Last Friday night Musk announced that X would sue Media Matters “the split second court opens on Monday.” I’m confident that Musk’s obliging attorney, Alex Spiro, knows that complaints in both San Francisco County Superior Court and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California may be electronically filed 24/7 these days. In fact I’m confident he has e-filing accounts for both courts. It may be Mr. Spiro didn’t see fit to tell that to Elon Musk Friday night. One sympathizes. Mr. Spire’s firm Quinn Emmanuel is as crowded with former federal prosecutors as a judicial convention, and carefully cultivates its reputation for being almost as good as it thinks it is. They’re excellent trial lawyers; just look at their advertisement saying so on the concourse at Burbank Airport.
Some might suggest that suing journalists to defend free speech sounds Orwellian and even unhinged. That’s because you haven’t considered that free speech also requires that journalists be prosecuted for fraud:
Just as the tree of liberty must occasionally be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants, freedom of speech must occasionally be protected by an unemployed ghoul and a personality disordered Boer persuading a bland FedSoc apparatchik to pester journalists for questioning billionaires.
It would be easy to blame this contemptible nonsense on Elon Musk being socially inept, proudly ignorant, and grotesquely petulant. But when it comes to thinking that the right to free speech includes the right to silence others, Elon learned it by watching us, okay? He learned it by watching us.
“Your criticism violates my right to free speech” is a fatuous but common American sentiment. It has been for some time. We’ve long heard it from athletes, like John Rocker complaining of a “defective reality” in which free speech is a myth because we’ve lost the ability “to speak freely without fear of chastisement.” We’ve long heard it from entertainers, like Clint Eastwood complaining that he should be able to tell ethnic jokes without fearing he’ll be called “a racist,” or Kirk Cameron saying that he should be able to speak out condemning homosexuality without being “slandered” or “accused of hate speech.” Note all of those stories are more than a decade old; I raise them to demonstrate that this has been going on a while, and I’ve been complaining about it for a while.
“Criticism is censorship” has been a standard trope in politics and punditry even longer, and has persisted there even more consistently. Calling Trump a racist, we are frequently told, violates his free speech rights:
Pundits, academics, and politicians are all guilty of this. College presidents assert that students protesting studio executives are infringing on free speech. Senator Ron Johnson claims that criticizing his stance on Black Lives Matter amounts to “silencing him,” and Justice Samuel Alito suggests that criticizing anti-gay political and legal positions impairs free speech. The trope is so embedded in the culture that even people with admirable records of free speech advocacy convince themselves that people protesting them are against free speech as opposed to disagreeing with and criticizing their speech.
Regrettably, the notion that criticism is censorship has been encouraged by the dialogue about “cancel culture.” The New York Times Editorial Board proclaims Americans are losing “ right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.” An earnest but painfully vague letter from literary luminaries in Harper’s conflates “restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society.” People who are sincerely concerned about free expression, people I admire and respect, argue that we must avoid “manipulative” and “ad hominem” criticism to protect speech — without really engaging the problem that both the critic and the criticized are people with free speech rights and interests.
I’ve argued that if “cancel culture” dialogue is to actually promote free speech— as opposed to just picking sides and choosing whose speech we care about, who should feel comfortable speaking — it needs to acknowledge the speech interests of everyone involved and be more specific, even to the point of pedantry. That’s not happening. If anything, the dialogue is getting muddier. Witness the disastrous discussions about campus speech about the war in Israel, characterized by commentators claiming back and forth that their rights are infringed by other people’s speech about war and death, that criticism of their speech about the war violates their rights.
I’m not optimistic, frankly. Elon Musk’s gripe that advertisers are attacking free speech, and that journalists are infringing speech by criticizing it, has become perfectly plausible to many Americans. In my view, too many critics of “cancel culture” are recklessly promoting not the speech of the powerless, but the censorious resentment of the powerful.
Last edited:
It was literally one of the most circulated posts a few weeks ago.
Hell. Even Elons adverts are disgusting.
I can't find anything related to that advert anymore, there's nothing on Twitter related to revealitapp. It would currently be illegal in the UK since very recently and is no longer on Twitter.
Your incompetence at finding things does not interest me.
The fact remains. Twitter is now a cesspool and it is hilarious how rapidly it’s gone down hill since Elon took over.
Soldato
I bet i use Twitter more than the average person on here and i literally don't see any of this stuff. It's a bit bizarre how there can be such disparity in experiences on the platform.
Last edited:
Commissario
I suspect there is an element of
Where you are (ads set for some locations)
Who you follow
Who you like
Time of day/when you log in
If you've got any form of ad blocker
Utter random chance
For example if you follow pretty much any high profile account you're far more likely to see a lot of heavy spam as you're likely to be clicking to see the posts by that account and thus the spam replies, if you follow or look at various tech accounts you're far more likely to see certain dodgy adverts because the advertisers/spammers are targeting them.
Also I suspect if you don't select the "following" option you're far more likely to see dodgy stuff because the other tag is basically what the the system is pushing regardless of your personal preferences.
Where you are (ads set for some locations)
Who you follow
Who you like
Time of day/when you log in
If you've got any form of ad blocker
Utter random chance
For example if you follow pretty much any high profile account you're far more likely to see a lot of heavy spam as you're likely to be clicking to see the posts by that account and thus the spam replies, if you follow or look at various tech accounts you're far more likely to see certain dodgy adverts because the advertisers/spammers are targeting them.
Also I suspect if you don't select the "following" option you're far more likely to see dodgy stuff because the other tag is basically what the the system is pushing regardless of your personal preferences.
Im a bit lost in this and admit have only caught the head lines. Elon is throwing a tantrum, because private companies don't want to do business with his private company?, and he's saying " No, you must pay me and always do business with me?"
- Status