3 ms·

> The calls for advertiser boycotts started as soon as the takeover was announced (...) You're casually glancing over Elon Musk's reiterated announcements that

> The calls for advertiser boycotts started as soon as the takeover was announced (...) You're casually glancing over Elon Musk's reiterated announcements that he would eliminate Twitter's moderation, and you're completely ignoring marketing execs stating publicly and in no uncertain terms that Elon Musk's decision and actions were a liability in terms of "brand safety/suitability". https://twitter.com/LouPas/status/1588599808587345921 https://twitter.com/LouPas/status/1588599808587345921

tbrownaw 4y ago
The very public reasons he initially tried to take over Twitter were disagreement with some of the political censorship decisions they made. AFAIK he's still banning trolls. Like for example that exchange regarding Alex Jones that got re-shared. . So, unless that meeting didn't match what's public, why would less political censorship be a "brand safety/suitability" issue?
- simplotek 4y ago
  > The very public reasons he initially tried to take over Twitter were disagreement with some of the political censorship decisions they made. You're disingenuously glancing over the fact that Elon Musk repeatedly said and did different things. As the Twitter thread I linked early clearly shows, Elon Musk was repeatedly giving assurances to marketing execs behind closed doors that he would continue moderating hate speech and extremist content on Twitter just as before. The marketing industry is not manned by fools, and once Elon Musk fired basically all content moderators then the industry called Elon Musk out on his bullshit and promptly yanked ad spending on Twitter, explaining quite clearly that cutting moderation was a major liability. It's amusing how people like you prefer to resort to puerile convoluted conspiracy theories to explain why ad companies stopped paying for ads on Twitter when the people who made that decision already stated in no uncertain terms how Elon Musk's actions turned Twitter into a liability.
  - tbrownaw 4y ago
    > It's amusing how people like you prefer to resort to puerile convoluted conspiracy theories to explain why ad companies stopped paying for ads on Twitter when the people who made that decision already stated in no uncertain terms how Elon Musk's actions turned Twitter into a liability. Dude. I am agreeing with this. They do not want to be seen with content from a different pillar.

tbrownaw 4y ago

The very public reasons he initially tried to take over Twitter were disagreement with some of the political censorship decisions they made. AFAIK he's still banning trolls. Like for example that exchange regarding Alex Jones that got re-shared. . So, unless that meeting didn't match what's public, why would less political censorship be a "brand safety/suitability" issue?

simplotek 4y ago
> The very public reasons he initially tried to take over Twitter were disagreement with some of the political censorship decisions they made. You're disingenuously glancing over the fact that Elon Musk repeatedly said and did different things. As the Twitter thread I linked early clearly shows, Elon Musk was repeatedly giving assurances to marketing execs behind closed doors that he would continue moderating hate speech and extremist content on Twitter just as before. The marketing industry is not manned by fools, and once Elon Musk fired basically all content moderators then the industry called Elon Musk out on his bullshit and promptly yanked ad spending on Twitter, explaining quite clearly that cutting moderation was a major liability. It's amusing how people like you prefer to resort to puerile convoluted conspiracy theories to explain why ad companies stopped paying for ads on Twitter when the people who made that decision already stated in no uncertain terms how Elon Musk's actions turned Twitter into a liability.
- tbrownaw 4y ago
  > It's amusing how people like you prefer to resort to puerile convoluted conspiracy theories to explain why ad companies stopped paying for ads on Twitter when the people who made that decision already stated in no uncertain terms how Elon Musk's actions turned Twitter into a liability. Dude. I am agreeing with this. They do not want to be seen with content from a different pillar.