Cont: Musk buys Twitter II

jeremyp said:
I was calling out your attitude which is based on cynicism rather than actual evidence. It's the same as those people who bleat that politicians are "all the same".

Apple is a corporate behemoth and surely does some bad things, but its business model is fundamentally better for people like me than that of Google in that I am their customer, not their product.

Anyway, this is very far off topic, so I'll say no more on the subject.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
Bollocks. I have *decades* of ICT experience. I was calling out your unthinkable acceptance of Apple statements, while refusing to believe those of similar corporations.
 
mumblethrax said:
The idea that PR surrounding privacy is going to motivate a corporation to protect privacy ignores the fact that it's just a lot easier to lie about protecting privacy. And when they're caught lying about, it doesn't have the calamitous effect on their reputation that people imagine it will, because they're very good at PR, and because there just aren't any realistic alternatives, beyond the hermitage of a barely functional alt-OS phone.
Click to expand...

Basically this. Apple has just proven they're willing to lie about this; they collect extensive amount of personal data for nebulous purposes, and even when they give you the option to opt out of that data collection, they just...do it anyway, and face zero consequences for doing so when the fact is exposed. Apple's actions here basically mean that you can't trust what they say about their intentions regarding data collection and privacy.
 
I see the pro-Russian conspiracy account 'Visegrád 24' is being unbanned by Mush.
After all, what's wrong with posting pictures of child rape?
 
Andy_Ross said:
Elon posted today



https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1811360296218341403
Click to expand...

Yet another frivolous anti-free speech lawsuit, in short, to try to pretend that his moronics aren't the reason for the problems that he's encountered? The twist this time, of course, is that House Republicans threw him a bone. The House Republicans' remarkable lack of credibility looks like it's rather obvious again, either way.

The details just get worse, of course.
 
it’s not free speech unless advertisers give you money no matter what was the thing i never understood. it was never about having a platform, it was about being able to monetize that platform. they try and conflate the two because it’s a giant hole in their argument. but i’ve never bought it
 
Aridas said:
The details just get worse, of course.
Click to expand...
Congress: It’s not illegal to boycott X

In the House committee's report, lawmakers clarified that each advertiser "could legally choose to independently withhold advertising from any platform or news outlet it chooses."

However, a single brand boycotting X wouldn't have the impact that GARM allegedly sought, Congress claimed. "What these corporations could not achieve unilaterally" to "silence conservative views," they "have worked extensively since 2019 to achieve by coordinating through GARM," the report alleged.
Even if GARM has "good intentions" in advising brands to hold off on X advertising, "federal antitrust laws do not diminish," lawmakers claimed.

If antitrust law doesn't apply in this case, legal reforms may be necessary to intervene between GARM and online platforms, Congress wrote, alleging that "GARM has no intention of limiting its censorship to existing technologies."

Lawmakers' biggest fear is that GARM's alleged overreach will be amplified by applying its strict monetization standards through "technologies in their infancy such as generative AI and the metaverse."

"GARM’s partners are developing AI tools that will integrate GARM’s standards seamlessly across social media platforms," the committee's report warned. "Such an automated censorship effort could result in the demonetization of any views or voices that GARM’s advertising cartel dislikes, potentially without any human involvement at all. Such concentrated market power is dangerous, and the implications of AI technology on advertising censorship are frightening."...

The Committee on the Judiciary reported that GARM may be violating the Sherman Act, which "makes unreasonable restraints of trade illegal," including certain cases when "group boycotts and coordinated actions" harm consumers....

GARM allegedly harmed consumers by wielding its "tremendous market power in the advertising industry" and "eliminating a variety of content and viewpoints available to consumers." This allegedly worked to "rob consumers of choices" and "is likely illegal under the antitrust laws," in addition to threatening "fundamental American freedoms," the committee's report said.

In the transcript of GARM co-founder Rob Rakowitz's testimony to the House committee reviewed by Ars, Rakowitz said GARM "brings together marketers, agencies, platforms, and industry groups to remove advertising support from harmful content in digital social media" and has "strict processes in place to ensure that we comply with relevant antitrust laws."

"Our goal is to create more transparency and competitiveness in the marketplace by developing voluntary industry standards through an inclusive and open process," Rakowitz said. "GARM is apolitical in its work and our membership approach is nondiscriminatory. We are not a watchdog. We are not a lobby. We do not boycott, and we do not collude."
Click to expand...
If GARM aren't violating the Sherman act then they have nothing to worry about.

However I find their practices troubling. It's one thing for an individual advertiser to 'boycott' a platform, but quite another when they hand over that power to a 'watchdog' that forces all its members to do the same. Even worse, GARM appear to be using their own criteria to decide who they will 'boycott'. Liberals may think that's great when it aligns with their own views, what about if it doesn't?

if X was only in it for the money it might not matter, but many users are expecting it to be a 'free speech' platform where they can espouse their views without fear of retribution. X may even be relying on that to increase its membership. If many users feel that they are being censored by a third party with a political and/or social agenda and decide to leave X, that could hurt the company because advertisers won't want to spend as much to reach a smaller audience.

What's even more troubling is that there's no theoretical reason why GARM couldn't 'censor' anything they want, including things that don't align with their political views. We should remember the days when many people in the US couldn't get a job because they were put on secret 'blacklists' during the McCarthy era.

Ben Shapiro may be an idiot, but he's not wrong about the danger of suppressing "insensitive, irresponsible... treatment of debated, sensitive social issues". People do that stuff all the time. Rather than trying to shield ourselves from it we should grow thicker skins - or just not read those tweets.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
If GARM aren't violating the Sherman act then they have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

Legally, sure. That's hardly the only danger posed here, though. It's not a perfect match to this situation, but ACORN had nothing to worry about, legally, either. ACORN's still gone, though, after dishonest right-wing shenanigans.

Roger Ramjets said:
However I find their practices troubling. It's one thing for an individual advertiser to 'boycott' a platform, but quite another when they hand over that power to a 'watchdog' that forces all its members to do the same. Even worse, GARM appear to be using their own criteria to decide who they will 'boycott'. Liberals may think that's great when it aligns with their own views, what about if it doesn't?
Click to expand...

The committee's report "does not include the 168-page transcribed interview which effectively clarifies questions on GARM’s adherence to competition law policy and practices, that GARM is a voluntary organization, and that guidance from GARM is non-binding," GARM said.
Click to expand...

In short, your stated concerns aren't well rooted in reality. What they're rooted in is right-wing BS.


Roger Ramjets said:
if X was only in it for the money it might not matter, but many users are expecting it to be a 'free speech' platform where they can espouse their views without fear of retribution. X may even be relying on that to increase its membership. If many users feel that they are being censored by a third party with a political and/or social agenda and decide to leave X, that could hurt the company because advertisers won't want to spend as much to reach a smaller audience.
Click to expand...

What retribution do those users face here?:eye-poppi

What censorship are they facing, for that matter? To try to call the situation in play censorship is to profoundly warp the meaning of censorship.


Roger Ramjets said:
What's even more troubling is that there's no theoretical reason why GARM couldn't 'censor' anything they want, including things that don't align with their political views. We should remember the days when many people in the US couldn't get a job because they were put on secret 'blacklists' during the McCarthy era.
Click to expand...

Theoretically speaking, you have a point here. It's just not all that applicable to the actual situation in play in the first place and ends up as little more than fearmongering.


Roger Ramjets said:
Ben Shapiro may be an idiot, but he's not wrong about the danger of suppressing "insensitive, irresponsible... treatment of debated, sensitive social issues". People do that stuff all the time. Rather than trying to shield ourselves from it we should grow thicker skins - or just not read those tweets.
Click to expand...

Maybe. You're trying really hard to defend Musk again, by the look of it, though, even if you have to resort to fallacy and BS to do it. Defending Musk is one thing and you're welcome to try to do that, but resorting to fallacy and BS is not particularly welcome.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Maybe. You're trying really hard to defend Musk again, by the look of it, though, even if you have to resort to fallacy and BS to do it. Defending Musk is one thing and you're welcome to try to do that, but resorting to fallacy and BS is not particularly welcome.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm not understanding the following correctly:

if X was only in it for the money it might not matter, but many users are expecting it to be a 'free speech' platform where they can espouse their views without fear of retribution. X may even be relying on that to increase its membership. If many users feel that they are being censored by a third party with a political and/or social agenda and decide to leave X, that could hurt the company because advertisers won't want to spend as much to reach a smaller audience.
Click to expand...

Then what's even more disturbing is he's all but saying that advertisers should HAVE to advertise on X because if they don't that could hurt X's business, which is as inane as any thing I've heard. Only X can censor the speech on X, and GARM isn't trying to do that. What GARM is saying is that if you're going to let Nazi, Antisemitic bull **** on your site then don't be surprised when they advice their group members to not advertise there. Which is completely and entirely reasonable. As the article says there is no enforcement from GARM, and it's completely voluntary. The fact is no one wants to advertise on X because it's a cesspool of hate and Right Wing nonsense.

Seriously Roger, it's ok to criticize Musk. He's not a god.
 
if he wanted a free speech platform, cutting advertisers out should have been the first thing he did, not something he desperately tries to get more of.
 
In reply to Margrethe Vestager, Executive Vice-President of the European Commission EU fit for Digital Age and Commissioner for Competition saying

"X doesn’t comply with the DSA in key transparency areas. It misleads users, fails to provide adequate ad repository and blocks access to data for researchers. It’s the first time we issue preliminary findings under the Digital Services Act."

Elon posted

"The DSA IS misinformation!
The European Commission offered X an illegal secret deal: if we quietly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not fine us.
The other platforms accepted that deal.
X did not.

We look forward to a very public battle in court, so that the people of Europe can know the truth"
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
What GARM is saying is that if you're going to let Nazi, Antisemitic bull **** on your site then don't be surprised when they advice their group members to not advertise there. Which is completely and entirely reasonable.
Click to expand...

Honestly, it's not even quite that. A number of advertiser organizations advised not to buy ads on Twitter for the sake of the advertiser's safety.

The Mediabrands’ outreach to clients came the same day that the Global Alliance for Responsible Media posted an open letter to Twitter — which called for improving safety on the platform for advertisers. GARM is a cross-industry initiative formed by the World Federation of Advertisers to address harmful content on digital media platforms.
Click to expand...

Musk's moronics and his various actions that screwed over many advertisers and left plenty more with the reasonable expectation that they would likely be screwed over if they continued to advertise on Twitter were fairly certainly informing the decisions of many to choose not to buy ads on Twitter. That he gutted consumer service for advertisers (getting charged for ads that a business didn't buy in the first place is not a good sign), gutted the basic, reasonable content moderation that was built into their expectations for the platform, and gutted the company to the extent that there was very real uncertainty about whether the service would just end up crashing and burning are all examples of major issues that drove away advertisers.

Trying to pretend that there was actually some giant conspiracy to "silence conservative voices" is utter BS. BS that treads well trodden false narratives embraced by the right-wing, of course.

I linked to this cartoon not many posts ago, but it's still so absurdly relevant to this.

There's Never Been a Worse Time For Freedom of Speech
 
Last edited:
It's easy.

When the government of Turkey or India asks you to censor political opposition ahead of an election, you do it, because you have to follow a countries' laws.

When the governments of Europe ask you to meet data transparency requirements, you don't, because you don't have to follow countries' laws.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
... However I find their [GARM] practices troubling.
Click to expand...
Of course you do. Any and all pushback against Musk troubles his gullible minions.

... many users are expecting it to be a 'free speech' platform where they can espouse their views without fear of retribution.
Click to expand...
After all of Musk's blatant attempts to suppress speech, anyone who considers X to actually be a free speech platform is a gullible minion.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
if X was only in it for the money it might not matter,
Click to expand...
Of course X is in it for the money. It's a corporation. If it doesn't make money, it will go out of business.

but many users are expecting it to be a 'free speech' platform where they can espouse their views without fear of retribution.
Click to expand...
X is not its users. The users of X are the things it sells to its advertisers. If a group of advertisers doesn't like the things X sells, why on earth would you expect that group to buy things off X?
X may even be relying on that to increase its membership. If many users feel that they are being censored by a third party with a political and/or social agenda and decide to leave X, that could hurt the company because advertisers won't want to spend as much to reach a smaller audience.
Click to expand...
How is Apple refusing to pay X for adverts restricting what I can say on X?

What's even more troubling is that there's no theoretical reason why GARM couldn't 'censor' anything they want, including things that don't align with their political views.
Click to expand...
GARM has no power to censor anything.
We should remember the days when many people in the US couldn't get a job because they were put on secret 'blacklists' during the McCarthy era.
Click to expand...

It's ludicrous to compare a few advertisers choosing not to spend morey on X with the McCarthy witch hunts.
 
A company, or any number of companies, not buying ad space on X doesn't prevent any user from posting anything they want on X. Anyone who contends otherwise need only provide a case of a user who claims that a post they made on X was deleted or altered or hidden from their followers because Apple wouldn't buy ads on X.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom