4 ms·
I am more interested in Parler's business model moving forward. One reason of censorship becomes so prevailing is because of advertising. The advertisers ultim
by karmasimida 6y ago
I am more interested in Parler's business model moving forward.
One reason of censorship becomes so prevailing is because of advertising. The advertisers ultimately defines what is 'toxic' and what not.
If Parler can stick to its current path and manage to survive, it would pretty significant to the internet ecosystem.
- nemo44x 6y agoI guess it depends on the bottom line for the company. Who their customers are. Nike shoes is an interesting recent example. They embraced the controversial NFL player Colin Kaepernick in various advertising campaigns, playing in his bravery for kneeling during the National Anthem of the United States. However this was not some sort of altruistic, egalitarian business campaign. It was a cold calculation from their data which said young people buy their products and young people are sympathetic to his cause and therefore we will sell more shoes going with this endorsement. It helped make Nike, a company with a very spotty humanitarian history and questions of exploitive labor practices, a corporation their audience of largely young progressive people felt identified with them. Advertising is about as cynical as it gets. For some companies it will make sense to “choose a side” which when thinking about it is as absurd and ridiculous as something could be. What would Adam Smith make of this?