Cont: Musk buys Twitter II

Gulliver Foyle said:
Thinking that Dorsey and Musk are ideologically very different people is, essentially, drinking the kool-aid.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, that's a point that's largely irrelevant to what you highlighted. The point was about the actual actions being taken, not the ideology of the doers.

Your response would be at least a bit more relevant if you had directed it towards the same thing of Samson's that I was responding to, even if it would still be off the mark because that, too, was about actions and not ideology.
 
Last edited:
i think there's some pretty interesting parallels with twitter there as well, especially as it relates to restrictions on speech and market pressure from advertisers. i also think it illustrates my point better than i have been. you simply can't generate revenue from advertising without being beholden to them to some degree.
 
Ehh, may as well put this here -

Media Matters' response to Elon Musk's 'thermonuclear' threat is a must-read

In response to Musk’s massive screed, Media Matters Angelo Carusone offered a short, if scathing, response.

Far from the free speech advocate he claims to be, Musk is a bully who threatens meritless lawsuits in an attempt to silence reporting that he even confirmed is accurate. Musk admitted the ads at issue ran alongside the pro-Nazi content we identified. If he does sue us, we will win.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

To poke back further at a somewhat similar situation, though -

Elon Musk issued a series of statements in which he has blamed secret manipulation by a Jewish organization for the destruction of the X platform, which was once called Twitter. Saying the Anti-Defamation League was the “primary” reason for falling ad revenue at X, Musk first threatened, then later seemed to promise to sue for damages.

That’s right. After months in which Musk has supported racist rants; encouraged hate speech; elevated literal Nazi propaganda; fired every Twitter employee in Brazil on suspicion of being too liberal; fired the entire company press office and the entire company communications department; decimated the team responsible for content moderation; terrified advertisers with chaos, irresponsibility, and perpetuating racism; and thrown away global brand recognition by renaming the whole platform to indulge a personal whim, Musk has put his finger on the real issue.

It’s the Jews.
Click to expand...
 
dirtywick said:
i've already addressed the difference in nature between your private conversations in public places and public announcements on twitter. the analogy even holds there because the dm feature is much more comparable to what you're describing and nobody is mad about what's happening in dms.

and while it would be interesting to unpack why insisting the mall be valid is fine but insisting it isn't is not, that's not even my point either. i'm comparing it to a mall because of how it actually functions: twitter isn't a free speech platform as much as he'd like to brand it that way, and there's a reason why everything in this thread revolves around how advertisers are reacting to his changes. to twitter you're an asset to be shown to their real customer, the advertiser. in a mall you're an asset available to their real customers, the stores. and i think that's where the entitlement comes from.

so anyone can certainly insist either one would make a great free speech zone or not, elon is demonstrating why it can't be.
Click to expand...

Which is a valid point in its own right. Plus, just the fact that it is a private platform means that the freedom of press applies, that is: to whoever owns the press. There is no freedom of speech right on any private board or other medium.

Just saying, the talking serious stuff at the mall analogy isn't adding anything there.

As for Musk, I'm not sure he really demonstrates anything except that he's a tinkerbellend who, I still think, didn't even actually intend to restore free speech or whatever. He just thought he'd make some big publicity waves and not pull through, as he's done before. Then it turned out that, just like my dad, he couldn't pull out :p

And he still doesn't do much more even after purchasing it, than being a full time tinkerbellend on it.

Plus some idiotic ideas on how to deal with the huge debt he's saddled it with, that he tries to spin in certain ways, but really contradict even his initial objections. E.g., he's worried about bots and impersonation, but fires the guys that were there to verify that it's really who it says it is. And now wants to sell old handles to the highest bidder, so basically you can be Barack Obama with a verified mark on X if that's for sale. It's not even coherent with what he was saying.

Again, because he never actually intended to go through with any of that, so he had no actual plan.

So I wouldn't read too much into what didn't work for Musk there. Whether some free speech platform works or not, well, probably not, but it's not from Musk that you'll learn that. He just proves that a tinkerbellend's ill conceived publicity stunt didn't work.
 
Last edited:
One thing it again illustrates how crap the media is at reporting. So many are reporting his latest antisemitism was the reason for the canceling of advertising by many brands whereas the fact is most of these happened before his "..that's the actual truth.." post, they happened after Media Matters sent companies the evidence that their adverts could appear next to Nazis' posts. His latest antisemitism seems to have been an added cherry on the cake for some companies.
 
HansMustermann said:
Which is a valid point in its own right. Plus, just the fact that it is a private platform means that the freedom of press applies, that is: to whoever owns the press. There is no freedom of speech right on any private board or other medium.

Just saying, the talking serious stuff at the mall analogy isn't adding anything there.

As for Musk, I'm not sure he really demonstrates anything except that he's a tinkerbellend who, I still think, didn't even actually intend to restore free speech or whatever. He just thought he'd make some big publicity waves and not pull through, as he's done before. Then it turned out that, just like my dad, he couldn't pull out :p

And he still doesn't do much more even after purchasing it, than being a full time tinkerbellend on it.

Plus some idiotic ideas on how to deal with the huge debt he's saddled it with, that he tries to spin in certain ways, but really contradict even his initial objections. E.g., he's worried about bots and impersonation, but fires the guys that were there to verify that it's really who it says it is. And now wants to sell old handles to the highest bidder, so basically you can be Barack Obama with a verified mark on X if that's for sale. It's not even coherent with what he was saying.

Again, because he never actually intended to go through with any of that, so he had no actual plan.

So I wouldn't read too much into what didn't work for Musk there. Whether some free speech platform works or not, well, probably not, but it's not from Musk that you'll learn that. He just proves that a tinkerbellend's ill conceived publicity stunt didn't work.
Click to expand...

because i feel that musk is a huge liar, i couldn't really guess what his intentions were when he made the offer to buy. like a lot of people, myself included at times would see people get suspended and banned and say "that's ******** it wasn't that bad" or "you should be able to say that" once he talked himself into a corner and was forced to buy it, he had to follow through.

and it just doesn't work. you can't keep the lights on. it's not structured to be a free speech public square whatever, it's an ad platform. they'd have to shift their entire financing model to something else.

but i think he's pretty badly missing the point. at the end of the day most of us ultimately recognize that a website should be able moderate their content as they please, even the large and popular ones. besides that, the internet itself is a free speech platform. find a server, buy some bandwidth, say what you want. anyone can do it at a tiny cost.

when it comes to entitlement, that's where i think musk and the rest of the free speech warriors are showing their ass. it's not about free speech at all, it's about monetization and access to an audience. you're not guaranteed that, and shouldn't be. you shouldn't be able to go on other people's websites, dip into their ad revenue and access their audience without having to follow their rules. you can always go start your own site and do whatever you want.
 
HansMustermann said:
Well, leaving aside Musk's personality for a second, new hilarity ensues as Right-wing influencers pledge to bail out Elon Musk after Apple, Disney, others suspend advertising on X

'cause, you know, a couple hundred thousand dollars will totally make up the difference :p
Click to expand...

Tate offering to bankrupt himself in a vain attempt to bail out the world's richest man paying 12 million to plug the 100s of millions of lost ad revenue is brilliant.

I hope more of these right-wing freaks show their dedication to the cause. Come on, Tim Pool, you're not paying enough, nor you Babylon Bee. You are supposed to be doing satire but the paltry sum you are putting in is the only joke I have seen from you in a long while.
 
Yeah, especially the delusional part where Tate thinks his 1 million a month can pay for all of X's costs, no other advertisers needed. Almost made me spit my coffee, it did.
 
Is this just a long game where Elon just has to hang on to to some form of functional site long enough for a big bank bailout?
It's bleeding money at a rate that would have already closed any other business venture.
 
HansMustermann said:
Yeah, especially the delusional part where Tate thinks his 1 million a month can pay for all of X's costs, no other advertisers needed. Almost made me spit my coffee, it did.
Click to expand...

Well, $1 million per month for a year would pay off a little over 1% of the loan interest. Only $988 million to go, plus the day to day running costs.
 
Also, it was probably said before in the thread, (but hey, I have the good excuse that I'm drunk) but Twitter ad rates were never that great to begin with. Say, compared to Facebook, for example. They didn't generate a lot of click-throughs, since most people would just scroll over them, it didn't rape the users' personal data enough for advertisers' taste, etc. So it already didn't have that huge of a margin to lose advertisers in the first place. In fact, the margin was already negative when Musk bought it.

So yeah, the business plan where he drove them away was even dumber than it sounds. And that's an achievement.
 
And just to add: it wasn't entirely unforeseeable either, especially for the self proclaimed smartest man. The term "YouTube adpocalypse" was coined back in 2017. That's almost 6 years before his offer to buy Twitter and hope that advertisers wouldn't care if he creates the same conditions that caused them to pull or impose harsher conditions of YouTube. And, as I was saying, even pre-existing Twitter data was enough proof that they apply criteria, not just give the same amount of money to everyone, no matter what. Makes you wonder how he missed that whole brouhaha going on on YT and, yes, even Twitter.
 
The latest Opening Arguments podcast is titiled "Elon Musk Will Save Free Speech By Suing Every Media Outlet on Earth". After a brief discussion of Trump's New York civil trial shenanigans, it gets into a pretty deep dive on what's going on with X and Elon. Worth a listen.
 
Elon tweeted
Media Matters is pure evil
Click to expand...

because the real goal of Media Matters isn't to fight antisemitism. It's to destroy X as a free speech platform. apparently it's part of a plan by the Democrats.
 
Samson said:
And Elon is not an antisemite, and has been exonerated in this 5 minute clip starring Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro, so the big guys can send him money for advertising and heartfelt apologies.

https://youtu.be/gsqii3yOPCc?si=R2XEmZLSt8OEbyzm
Click to expand...

Dave Rubin is probably one of the stupidest people who ever lived. Getting a character reference from him is worse than useless. If anything it is damning.

Those companies are not going to go back to Twatter and there will definitely not be any apologies. Musk has himself confirmed that people can spew Nazi **** on his platform cos it’s free speech. And guess what? Companies have every right to take that into account when choosing where to advertise their brands. Nobody should be compelled to advertise on a social media site alongside Nazis. The fact that douchebags like Dave Rubin doesn’t get this is absolutely no surprise. The man is a pathetic joke that even his friends think of as a degenerate. No matter how many times he licks the arse of people like Ben Shapiro, Shapiro is never going to go to Rubin’s anniversary parties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom