The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
Roar87 said:
I just think your expectation of how quickly things should get moderated aren't really reasonable considering the size and scale of the internet. You did remember you can block posts instantly right?
Click to expand...

Maybe if they actually had a moderating team this would have been dealt with. Though through Elon's decisions they likely can't even afford a moderating team now its in such a financial hole.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Maybe if they actually had a moderating team this would have been dealt with. Though through Elon's decisions they likely can't even afford a moderating team now its in such a financial hole.
Click to expand...

These are the same advertisers that pulled out the second he bought the company simply because he said he wanted to make the platform a free speech platform, without even waiting to see any policy changes. The people behind the scenes making the decisions are just bad actors. The decisions being made are political. I don't need or want to convince people like you of this because you support the politics of the people making the decisions. I may as well be sat trying to convince a Manchester United fan that Man City are a better club; this is why I barely respond here anymore.
 
jeffk said:
I agree, it’s everywhere. The difference is if you report this kind of content on somewhere like Facebook, it’s likely to be removed. On X, it won’t be.
Click to expand...
No. the difference is that the owners don't retweet it! Show me any major tech company where the owner retweeted the Nancy Pelosi husband made UK story. Or that reply to anti semetic content... There isn't one. They doesn't exist other than elon.

Then show me any other major tech companies, where the advertisers are saying "we need to see that you know how to recover from bad pr and not make it worse, and can show that you're not going to post anti semetic stuff again", and then the ceo in reply to those worries says "go f yourself"

This is so simple yet the simps just can't comprehend it and instead make it something even simpler like "rocket man bad" or "trump unbanned bad", though I see roar has stopped with that last one as perhaps he's realised how stupid it was and it wasn't working
 
when you see the BBC reporting on posts by the IRD on Gaza - what would IRD do if twitter went out of business, unable to disseminate their PR - or, like the holocaust rememberance organisation;
Musk needs to up the membership fee.
 
Roar87 said:
These are the same advertisers that pulled out the second he bought the company simply because he said he wanted to make the platform a free speech platform
Click to expand...

Citation required.

Roar87 said:
without even waiting to see any policy changes. The people behind the scenes making the decisions are just bad actors.
Click to expand...

Citation required.

Roar87 said:
The decisions being made are political.
Click to expand...

Citation required.

Roar87 said:
I don't need or want to convince people like you of this because you support the politics of the people making the decisions.
Click to expand...

n8KHfAv.gif


Roar87 said:
I may as well be sat trying to convince a Manchester United fan that Man City are a better club; this is why I barely respond here anymore.
Click to expand...

Particularly awful example to use given the absolute state of City off the pitch and United both off and on the pitch.
 
JRS said:
Citation required.



Citation required.
Click to expand...

I'm confused, you need a source showing the advertisers pulled out of Twitter on day 1?

www.thewrap.com

Elon Musk's First Day at Twitter: N-Word and Pro-Nazi Tweets Go Unchecked - at Least for Now

Musk says he'll establish a content moderation "council," and no "major" content or reinstatement decisions will happen until then
www.thewrap.com www.thewrap.com

These were the sorts of articles that were written. Newspapers and groups like the ADL and Media Matters immediately wrote articles slating Elon Musk for wanting Twitter to be a platform for free speech. On literally day one they claimed hate speech and attacks on black people and Jews had risen (how can any meaningful data be pulled from a single day and decisions be made off of it LOL) - yet this was before a single person was made redundant and any policy changes had been made; as a result advertisers paused spending on the first day he owned it. Advertising groups wish to control content on social media, this isn't anything unique to Twitter either, they did the same thing to Meta and Google (Youtube), it's just both of those companies capitulated to advertising pressure. That's why so many Youtube channels are demonetised at the first hint of anything that could be advertiser unfriendly. It's not even Apple and Disney making the decisions though, it's the CEOs of advertising groups, who are also members of special interest groups. Ultimately it all comes down to wealthy old men maintaining their positions and salaries on boards by doing what political groups tell them to do.
 
Last edited:
@Roar87 - you said that they pulled out "simply because he said he wanted to make the platform a free speech platform". I was asking you to cite a source for that claim. I'd also like to know where "[t]he people behind the scenes making the decisions are just bad actors" comes from.
 
JRS said:
@Roar87 - you said that they pulled out "simply because he said he wanted to make the platform a free speech platform".
Click to expand...

“As with Telegram, Gab, Parler, Rumble, and other platforms that refuse to address incitement and slander in the name of free speech, such platforms have become hotbeds for radicalism and hate.”
Click to expand...

This is what the ADL wrote on day 1.

As a result
On Friday evening, General Motors issued a statement that it was “pausing” ads on Twitter for the time being. “We are engaging with Twitter to understand the direction of the platform under their new ownership. As is normal course of business with a significant change in a media platform, we have temporarily paused our paid advertising,”
Click to expand...

Then

“What comes next is up to the major brands and their media buyers who spend billions each year advertising on Twitter. Companies like Unilever, HBO, Disney, Verizon, Comcast, Coca-Cola, and Procter & Gamble should be proactive and make it clear that they will walk if Musk follows through with his promises to roll back brand safety and community safeguards.”
Click to expand...

This despite Musk saying

"Twitter obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences" which holds up today.


Simply by Elon Musk stating he wanted the platform to be a public town square for free speech and debate, the advertisers were gone almost immediately.

I was asking you to cite a source for that claim. I'd also like to know where "[t]he people behind the scenes making the decisions are just bad actors" comes from.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

They are bad actors because on day 1 articles such as the one I linked, as well as statements from the ADL and Media Matters falsely claiming that there was a huge increase in attacks on Jews and black people caused them to take decisions without evidence or objectivity. Groups like the ADL and Media Matters quite obviously control the advertisers, they're not truth seekers, they just want compliance and power. They should go **** themselves.
 
Last edited:
So basically a load of big corporations were worried about the direction Elon would take Twitter given his previous and increasingly odd antics.

As a result of that, they did a quick risk assessment and decided to pause spending until they saw what happened.

The things the Risk Analysis suggested might happen happened, and Elon doubled down on his conspiracy nonsense, so they've continued to not spend.

Sounds like good business principles to me.
 
I think Musk is a bit of an idiot to not have found someone competent to run the day to day properly. I'm sure he is an excellent blue-sky thinker but this was a large corporation that needed management.

What I think is particularly dishonest and its why I despise a lot of people on the left for their rampant hypocrisy....is that they were absolutely happy for their own echo chamber with everyone else being silenced.

As soon as it became more open it was suddenly cries of not fair, not appropriate and the moves to kill this via advertising just goes to show how malicious and anti free speech they are.

(For the record I have never had a twitter account, will not be opening one and genuinely wish with all my heart that the old Internet could come back).
 
Orangeade said:
(For the record I have never had a twitter account, will not be opening one and genuinely wish with all my heart that the old Internet could come back).
Click to expand...

It could come back, however most people choose not to use these ways. EG chat rooms, IRC e.t.c.

They all still out there if not bigger than before - you just have to find them.
 
Last edited:
wesimmo said:
So basically a load of big corporations were worried about the direction Elon would take Twitter given his previous and increasingly odd antics.

As a result of that, they did a quick risk assessment and decided to pause spending until they saw what happened.

The things the Risk Analysis suggested might happen happened, and Elon doubled down on his conspiracy nonsense, so they've continued to not spend.

Sounds like good business principles to me.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the corporations though, their advertising is managed through third party companies who are influenced by groups like the ADL and Media Matters - and these groups have political interests. It's not about reputational damage that could lead to a loss in profit directly through public opinion, Media Matters and the ADL basically black mail social media companies because they are the ones doing the reputational damage by releasing negative statements which are based on whether the company complies with their demands and acts how they say.

Ultimately free speech is not something they value or have any interest in seeing, they desire control and power over public discourse. These groups all need to go **** themselves and are simply lucky the majority of people are ignorant to what they actually do.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes, in life, you have to wonder if every time you find yourself driving up the motorway and all the headlights are coming in your direction, you might be the problem...

Ultimately this comes down to money and profit, which ultimately comes down to what society, on the whole, desires or values when you're talking about global brands.

Nobody has taken away free speech. Society has just said they don't want to pay to listen to the sort of stuff that is said on Twitter these days.

So either

1. Elon follows through on his free speech absolutist cult thing and funds it himself so a niche of society can have the platform devoid of any reasonable moderation they want.

2. He follows through, doesn't fund it and it runs out of money.

3. He goes back to the previous model of moderation, dials back his online inflammatory posts and finds a position for Twitter that caters to the majority, pays the bills and maybe makes X the 'one and everything App' he talks about.
 
Society has absolutely not said they do not want free speech.

Groups like the ADL and Media Matters have deliberately tarnished the reputation of social media companies who allow free speech by creating false negative stories which are then reported by the media, this is black mail. It is not authentic public opinion, it is politically influenced pressure groups who seek power, wealth and control. No genuine user has ever seen an advert for an Apple product next to Nazi hate speech, Media Matters know this, they do not care - they want their power and influence. They are a group of lying cowards who should go **** themselves.
 
Roar87 said:
It wasn't the corporations though, their advertising is managed through third party companies
Click to expand...

Managed by yes, controlled by no.

The client decides how much they spend, if they turn the taps on more or down to less.
The managing company work how best to spend what they are allocated, often with sign off in regards significant expenditure from the client. (approving ad campaigns, messages etc)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom