5 ms·

IBM suspends advertising on X as Musk faces antisemitism backlash

21 points by rurp 3y ago

photochemsyn 3y ago
[flagged]
- rurp 3y ago
  Hating jews and pandering to dictators and racists is an odd way to pursue world peace.
  - photochemsyn 3y ago
    Maybe you should study the apparently local and small-scale events that kicked off World War I?
- dekhn 3y ago
  Musk is not some sort of genius 4-d chess playing geopolitical master. He's just an asshole with money who wants to stir up shit to distract him from his own mental demons. He is absolutely not trying to actively avoid World War III by saying stupid things on the platform he bought to amplify his stupidity.
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    > the platform he bought to amplify his stupidity This isn't really accurate or fair. He bought Twitter because he wanted a board seat, but meme'd so hard he accidentally a $44 billion dollar bid (and waived his right to due diligence), then spent several months trying to get out of it until he settled to avoid a trial. The stupidity amplification is secondary.
    - testrun 3y ago
      So his stupidity caused him to buy Twitter, that gave him a vehicle to broadcast said stupidity. Mission accomplished I say.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  The source for the humanists vs extinctionists idea is a tweet by Musk[1] 1. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1719398881870356695 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1719398881870356695
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  If Musk is such a great guy, why doesn't he make the minimal effort to lay out an argument, instead of saying 'this is the truth' in response to obvious Jew-baiting, and relying on sycophants and apologists to rationalize/reinterpret his actions? That's stereotypical cult leader bullshit. I personally think Israel is hugely morally culpable and has responded to being the victim of a war crime with multiple war crimes of its own. But while I strenuously disagree with their policy and actions, I managed to say that without invoking garbage global Jewish anti-white conspiracies recycled from the trashheaps of the 19th and 20th centuries. As for your 'Do you want to be with the humanists or with the extinctionists?' pitch, GTFO with your cheap rhetorical tricks.
  - polski-g 3y ago
    > why doesn't he make the minimal effort to lay out an argument, instead of saying 'this is the truth' in response to obvious Jew-baiting, and relying on sycophants and apologists to rationalize/reinterpret his actions? I mean, he did... Scroll down and read the rest of his tweets on the thread.
    - dekhn 3y ago
      From what I can see of his additional tweets they don't make any further coherent argument. I understand the substance of his underlying argument, and if he truly wanted to be effective, he wouldn't be doing so with the way he's approaching this, which is to be unnecessarily vague and inflammatory. It doesn't help that twitter is such a poor communication medium, especially prone to misunderstanding. If he wanted to have the greatest impact, a reasonable approach would be to write an articulate argument in a non-inflammatory way in the form of an opinion article in the New York Times. Why? Because the Times is the mouthpiece of the US establishment, and reaches precisely the community that he wishes he could influence. And because by making it non-inflammatory, and instead fact-based and logical, people will have a much harder time dismissing it. If you are powerful and truly want change, you owe it to yourself to use your big brain to come up with an mechanism to effect that change. Sitting around shit-talking on your overpriced social media site is not that mechanism.
- quantified 3y ago
  What in his words or actions here backs up your opinion? We're not going back to the Iron Age. The Plasticine is here to stay.
rurp 3y ago
> "The X system is not intentionally placing a brand actively next to this type of content" > "Ads follow the people on X. In this case the Media Matter's researcher has its own user handle and they are then actively looking for this content — that's how user targeting works" These contradictory quotes are from the same Twitter exec. I suspect that what they really mean is that they are happy to advertise next to Nazi posts, but don't like the negative consequences they face from doing so.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  What the talking head is saying is that the user is looking at the content they want to look at, and ads targeting the user. They're saying they aren't specifically putting these ads next to the Nazi posts. They're also saying that they if those ads just happen to show up with Nazi posts, they aren't doing anything to stop that.
  - rurp 3y ago
    Intentionally allowing Nazi posts and not excluding them from ad placements is the same as targeting them with ads.
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  What I take from this is that Nazi users are poisonous to ad revenue so there should be less reason to allow them on a monetized platform. If Elon wanted to save money by reducing server load and woo advertisers back, he could ban all Nazis from Twitter and then there won't be any Nazis to accidentally advertise to/beside!
  - quantified 3y ago
    Why wouldn't Musk welcome the revenue from advertisers that would be happy to be placed with Nazis?
    - CaptainZapp 3y ago
      Which advertisers would those be?
SenAnder 3y ago
The tweet that seems to have kicked things off, mentioned in the article: https://nitter.1d4.us/elonmusk/status/1724908287471272299 https://nitter.1d4.us/elonmusk/status/1724908287471272299
SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
[flagged]
- darthrupert 3y ago
  Please, let's not let important words like "genocide" lose all meaning.
  - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
    Ah yeah. Sorry I forgot that genocide's definition comes with the proviso "unless it's done by Israel". Forcible migration, indiscriminate decimation of population centres, ethnic discrimination and segregation, cutting off necessities of life, mass killing of civilians and children. Ah, but again, I got carried away and forgot, it is Israel doing it. Thank you for correcting the record so that I won't dilute the meaning of the word "genocide" with such trifles.

21 points by rurp 3y ago

photochemsyn 3y ago

[flagged]

rurp 3y ago
Hating jews and pandering to dictators and racists is an odd way to pursue world peace.
- photochemsyn 3y ago
  Maybe you should study the apparently local and small-scale events that kicked off World War I?
dekhn 3y ago
Musk is not some sort of genius 4-d chess playing geopolitical master. He's just an asshole with money who wants to stir up shit to distract him from his own mental demons. He is absolutely not trying to actively avoid World War III by saying stupid things on the platform he bought to amplify his stupidity.
- meepmorp 3y ago
  > the platform he bought to amplify his stupidity This isn't really accurate or fair. He bought Twitter because he wanted a board seat, but meme'd so hard he accidentally a $44 billion dollar bid (and waived his right to due diligence), then spent several months trying to get out of it until he settled to avoid a trial. The stupidity amplification is secondary.
  - testrun 3y ago
    So his stupidity caused him to buy Twitter, that gave him a vehicle to broadcast said stupidity. Mission accomplished I say.
cratermoon 3y ago
The source for the humanists vs extinctionists idea is a tweet by Musk[1] 1. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1719398881870356695 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1719398881870356695
anigbrowl 3y ago
If Musk is such a great guy, why doesn't he make the minimal effort to lay out an argument, instead of saying 'this is the truth' in response to obvious Jew-baiting, and relying on sycophants and apologists to rationalize/reinterpret his actions? That's stereotypical cult leader bullshit. I personally think Israel is hugely morally culpable and has responded to being the victim of a war crime with multiple war crimes of its own. But while I strenuously disagree with their policy and actions, I managed to say that without invoking garbage global Jewish anti-white conspiracies recycled from the trashheaps of the 19th and 20th centuries. As for your 'Do you want to be with the humanists or with the extinctionists?' pitch, GTFO with your cheap rhetorical tricks.
- polski-g 3y ago
  > why doesn't he make the minimal effort to lay out an argument, instead of saying 'this is the truth' in response to obvious Jew-baiting, and relying on sycophants and apologists to rationalize/reinterpret his actions? I mean, he did... Scroll down and read the rest of his tweets on the thread.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    From what I can see of his additional tweets they don't make any further coherent argument. I understand the substance of his underlying argument, and if he truly wanted to be effective, he wouldn't be doing so with the way he's approaching this, which is to be unnecessarily vague and inflammatory. It doesn't help that twitter is such a poor communication medium, especially prone to misunderstanding. If he wanted to have the greatest impact, a reasonable approach would be to write an articulate argument in a non-inflammatory way in the form of an opinion article in the New York Times. Why? Because the Times is the mouthpiece of the US establishment, and reaches precisely the community that he wishes he could influence. And because by making it non-inflammatory, and instead fact-based and logical, people will have a much harder time dismissing it. If you are powerful and truly want change, you owe it to yourself to use your big brain to come up with an mechanism to effect that change. Sitting around shit-talking on your overpriced social media site is not that mechanism.
quantified 3y ago
What in his words or actions here backs up your opinion? We're not going back to the Iron Age. The Plasticine is here to stay.

rurp 3y ago

> "The X system is not intentionally placing a brand actively next to this type of content" > "Ads follow the people on X. In this case the Media Matter's researcher has its own user handle and they are then actively looking for this content — that's how user targeting works" These contradictory quotes are from the same Twitter exec. I suspect that what they really mean is that they are happy to advertise next to Nazi posts, but don't like the negative consequences they face from doing so.

cratermoon 3y ago
What the talking head is saying is that the user is looking at the content they want to look at, and ads targeting the user. They're saying they aren't specifically putting these ads next to the Nazi posts. They're also saying that they if those ads just happen to show up with Nazi posts, they aren't doing anything to stop that.
- rurp 3y ago
  Intentionally allowing Nazi posts and not excluding them from ad placements is the same as targeting them with ads.
I_Am_Nous 3y ago
What I take from this is that Nazi users are poisonous to ad revenue so there should be less reason to allow them on a monetized platform. If Elon wanted to save money by reducing server load and woo advertisers back, he could ban all Nazis from Twitter and then there won't be any Nazis to accidentally advertise to/beside!
- quantified 3y ago
  Why wouldn't Musk welcome the revenue from advertisers that would be happy to be placed with Nazis?
  - CaptainZapp 3y ago
    Which advertisers would those be?

SenAnder 3y ago

The tweet that seems to have kicked things off, mentioned in the article: https://nitter.1d4.us/elonmusk/status/1724908287471272299 https://nitter.1d4.us/elonmusk/status/1724908287471272299

SuperNinKenDo 3y ago

[flagged]

darthrupert 3y ago
Please, let's not let important words like "genocide" lose all meaning.
- SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
  Ah yeah. Sorry I forgot that genocide's definition comes with the proviso "unless it's done by Israel". Forcible migration, indiscriminate decimation of population centres, ethnic discrimination and segregation, cutting off necessities of life, mass killing of civilians and children. Ah, but again, I got carried away and forgot, it is Israel doing it. Thank you for correcting the record so that I won't dilute the meaning of the word "genocide" with such trifles.