3 ms·

Twitter used to be a bastion of free speech. At one point ISIS/Daesh was announcing executions on Twitter - which was when Twitter started enforcing their alrea

Twitter used to be a bastion of free speech. At one point ISIS/Daesh was announcing executions on Twitter - which was when Twitter started enforcing their already existing rules (eg no conspiring to murder people). Somehow it’s got stricter and stricter to the point where satire articles get flagged. I’m pretty sure Twitter has room to maneuver without advertisers caring. The problem is advertisers demanding assurances when the company literally had a takeover last week. There are no assurances ik a situation like this, which lets activists manufacture doubt.

jtthe13 4y ago
> The problem is advertisers demanding assurances when the company literally had a takeover last week. Advertisers have the right to demand all the assurances they want. There are other places to spend ad budget. In this economic context there is extra pressure to make every dollar count. Advertisers care about brand equity and RoI. They don’t owe Twitter one dollar. It’s not the advertisers’ fault the takeover is so messy. It’s 100% of Musk’s doing. It’s not the activists’ fault Twitter had no good answers, irrespective of where the questions originated. And lastly, it’s not the first media M&A deal in history. Seeking assurances post-acquisition is boringly standard practice.
watwut 4y ago
I don't think ISIS organizing on Twitter and other genocides worldwide is something good. But also, Twitter was moderating long before ISIS issues - except it focused on English speaking world (meaning Americans were moderated much more). More importantly, the events this talk about were in May. That was when advertisers asked questions about future leadership and got no answers. Except what was on Elon Musk tweet feed. And Elon Musk vision as shown on his feed does not add confidence. There thing are apparently bought a year in advance, so they think a year in advance. Twitter used to spend a lot of effort in order to ensure advertisers year after year. Musk thought it is unnecessary, so he did not. So now they are doubting because communication toward them changed. Then, as Musk was firing ad accounts managers from Twitter, he had group call with ads who felt not being listened to. Combine it with being unsure who even to talk to, they did not bought again.
rolenthedeep 4y ago
If activists were "manufacturing" doubt, that implies the doubt is false. Which means Twitter could resolve the doubt when the advertisers ask questions. Advertisers are asking questions, and Twitter isn't providing answers or assurances. Therefore, advertisers are backing off. This is completely down to Twitter being taken over by a guy who insisted for months that he would turn it into a "free speech" hellscape, and refusing to answer any questions about his policies. Policies which he seems to change based on the weather. Twitter isn't providing any sort of assurance that the platform will continue to exist in a way that advertisers are comfortable advertising on. Trying to blame this on a boogeyman labeled "activist" is pretty much nonsense. Musk has been completely reckless during the takeover, and these are the consequences of those actions.

jtthe13 4y ago

> The problem is advertisers demanding assurances when the company literally had a takeover last week. Advertisers have the right to demand all the assurances they want. There are other places to spend ad budget. In this economic context there is extra pressure to make every dollar count. Advertisers care about brand equity and RoI. They don’t owe Twitter one dollar. It’s not the advertisers’ fault the takeover is so messy. It’s 100% of Musk’s doing. It’s not the activists’ fault Twitter had no good answers, irrespective of where the questions originated. And lastly, it’s not the first media M&A deal in history. Seeking assurances post-acquisition is boringly standard practice.

watwut 4y ago

I don't think ISIS organizing on Twitter and other genocides worldwide is something good. But also, Twitter was moderating long before ISIS issues - except it focused on English speaking world (meaning Americans were moderated much more). More importantly, the events this talk about were in May. That was when advertisers asked questions about future leadership and got no answers. Except what was on Elon Musk tweet feed. And Elon Musk vision as shown on his feed does not add confidence. There thing are apparently bought a year in advance, so they think a year in advance. Twitter used to spend a lot of effort in order to ensure advertisers year after year. Musk thought it is unnecessary, so he did not. So now they are doubting because communication toward them changed. Then, as Musk was firing ad accounts managers from Twitter, he had group call with ads who felt not being listened to. Combine it with being unsure who even to talk to, they did not bought again.

rolenthedeep 4y ago

If activists were "manufacturing" doubt, that implies the doubt is false. Which means Twitter could resolve the doubt when the advertisers ask questions. Advertisers are asking questions, and Twitter isn't providing answers or assurances. Therefore, advertisers are backing off. This is completely down to Twitter being taken over by a guy who insisted for months that he would turn it into a "free speech" hellscape, and refusing to answer any questions about his policies. Policies which he seems to change based on the weather. Twitter isn't providing any sort of assurance that the platform will continue to exist in a way that advertisers are comfortable advertising on. Trying to blame this on a boogeyman labeled "activist" is pretty much nonsense. Musk has been completely reckless during the takeover, and these are the consequences of those actions.