3 ms·
You are implying that advertisers would boycott a free speech platform, and this might be true for some advertisers, when Facebook was boycotted by some activis
by cloutchaser 5y ago
You are implying that advertisers would boycott a free speech platform, and this might be true for some advertisers, when Facebook was boycotted by some activist businesses it didn't dent their bottom line.
Also - Twitter is more of a networking and influence tool in my opinion for "important people". These people are MUCH more likely to pay for Twitter, it's not like facebook where 99% of people would never pay for it. Which I think is what Musk was hinting at with blue badges for $2.
If he does that, boycotting advertisers will matter much less.
- XorNot 5y agoHow many "important people" do you think exist on Twitter? It's a few thousand, maybe tens of thousands at most. So that revenue is worth, what, $50,000 a year?
- kbelder 5y agoHow many people on twitter think they're important? That's the more pertinent question.
- nemothekid 5y agoAdvertisers didn’t boycott Facebook because Facebook ads are a money making machine. They demonstrably work because of the depth and breadth of Facebook’s data targeting. You can’t compare it to Twitter; advertisers may be more willing to dump Twitter as a platform as it isn’t as valuable.