5 ms·

There is a lot here to be think about. Three most interesting points to me are 1. These companies have bottom-of-the-barrel moral standards and don't care what

by roenxi 3y ago

There is a lot here to be think about. Three most interesting points to me are 1. These companies have bottom-of-the-barrel moral standards and don't care what one person on Twitter is Tweeting. This has to be political manoeuvring of some sort. 2. A lot of advertisers were quitting Twitter a while ago weren't they? But it has been months now. If they're still quitting, that suggests the flood of quitters is more of a small trickle. So this the first time all these companies have quit? Or is it that the media companies are quitting this round? 3. Musk is still the wealthiest human on the planet (in history? I expect in nominal terms he's the wealthiest in history). Twitter is a bit of a political sideshow for him. He might even decide to run it without ads, that'd hurt him financially and be a win for the rest of us.

pxmpxm 3y ago
Not sure why the downvotes - this definitely seems to be a coordinated effort, rather than one off brand-management exercise by IBM, but to what end I have no idea. Evidently Media Matters is somehow inciting this?
viraptor 3y ago
Lots of companies quit then returned. I don't know if these ones are in the first batch of quitting, but it may be the second time for them rather than "a trickle".
throw0101b 3y ago
> 3. Musk is still the wealthiest human on the planet (in history? I expect in nominal terms he's the wealthiest in history). John D. Rockefeller would like to have a word if we're talking about Americans, as would Carnegie and Vanderbilt: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_Americans_in_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_Americans_in_h... Internationally: Augustus Caesar, Emperor Shenzong, Akbar I: * https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3197600/10-richest-people-who-ever-lived-net-worths-ranked-elon-musk-and-jeff-bezos-dont-come-close-genghis https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/31976...
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to refer to heads of state as having the wealth of the state. Musk can effectively spend all of his wealth if he chooses to (after paying his debts). Heads of state really can't, except on the state itself. Not even absolute monarchs.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > doesn't make a whole lot of sense to refer to heads of state as having the wealth of the state Caesar Augustus was personally very, very rich. The British Crown has, similarly, its own private assets.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      The British Crown is barely a billionaire. Augustus may have been independently wealthy, I'm just saying don't attribute the wealth of the state to him as well.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > British Crown is barely a billionaire I'm using the Crown to illustrate the difference between the personal assets of a head of state and the assets of their state. > just saying don't attribute the wealth of the state to him as well The SCMP article you're responding to makes it clear they aren't doing this.
        anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        Sort of. But they're also trying to convert percentages of much poorer and much smaller empires of yore into percentages of today's GWP.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > The British Crown is barely a billionaire. The Crown is a billionaire many, many times over. The monarch as an individual may or may not be "barely a billionaire", depending on how you look at things.
mmcwilliams 3y ago
This is an odd take. Today on Twitter I saw an ad for a whites-only dating service with the photo of a celebrity who very likely did not endorse the company with the use of a racial slur (with an "r" at the end). Whatever you think about the "moral standards" of the companies in question, it makes sense that they would not want to put their brand on the same platform that would serve these ads alongside theirs. That doesn't seem to be political maneuvering but very basic advertising sense.
- roenxi 3y ago
  Bit of tell, isn't it? The advertisers were fine with that, nytimes.com didn't write an article about it, etcetera.
  - mmcwilliams 3y ago
    Isn't the fact that advertisers are leaving evidence that they aren't fine with that? I'm not sure I follow.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      You're not agreeing with nytimes.com - they think that Musk's tweets are the issue here. You're suggesting it is who Twitter accepts ads from. And I'm suggesting that it is likely nytimes.com - or the companies reported on, or both - are engaged in political manoeuvring because we know their moral standards are remarkably low. if it means they can get eyeballs where they want them. If companies were motivated more by not wanting to associate with caucasian dating sites (although to be honest why that would be a problem I don't see, what is next - banning gay dating sites? People have weird preferences and there are dating sites for all of them) then presumably the Times would be obliged to report on that.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  It matters for the same reason that ads work- subconsciously. Seeing an Apple ad next to racial slurs means you are more likely to think of racial slurs when you think of Apple, or Apple when you think of racial slurs. Apple obviously doesn't agree with or are they responsible for those views but we can't change how human minds work. At the end of the day they do not want the association in people's heads.
iamdbtoo 3y ago
> These companies have bottom-of-the-barrel moral standards and don't care what one person on Twitter is Tweeting. Advertisers have cared about placement for as long as advertising has existed.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Advertisers have cared about placement for as long as advertising has existed And advertising executives care about not having to monitor Elon's Twitter account in case he tweets something stupid on a Saturday.
manicennui 3y ago
And the gold medal in mental gymnastics goes to... Twitter has never been a great platform to advertise on, the quality of the advertisers has dropped dramatically this year, and companies are distancing themselves from the clown show. There is no secret conspiracy. Advertising on Twitter just doesn't make sense.
TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
> 1. These companies have bottom-of-the-barrel moral standards and don't care what one person on Twitter is Tweeting. This has to be political manoeuvring of some sort. Or they just don’t want their brand associated with such posts. As kids these days say, “They don’t want no smoke”. These companies are about making money. Getting associated with controversial stuff is bad for business.

by roenxi 3y ago

pxmpxm 3y ago

Not sure why the downvotes - this definitely seems to be a coordinated effort, rather than one off brand-management exercise by IBM, but to what end I have no idea. Evidently Media Matters is somehow inciting this?

viraptor 3y ago

Lots of companies quit then returned. I don't know if these ones are in the first batch of quitting, but it may be the second time for them rather than "a trickle".

throw0101b 3y ago

> 3. Musk is still the wealthiest human on the planet (in history? I expect in nominal terms he's the wealthiest in history). John D. Rockefeller would like to have a word if we're talking about Americans, as would Carnegie and Vanderbilt: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_Americans_in_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_Americans_in_h... Internationally: Augustus Caesar, Emperor Shenzong, Akbar I: * https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3197600/10-richest-people-who-ever-lived-net-worths-ranked-elon-musk-and-jeff-bezos-dont-come-close-genghis https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/31976...

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to refer to heads of state as having the wealth of the state. Musk can effectively spend all of his wealth if he chooses to (after paying his debts). Heads of state really can't, except on the state itself. Not even absolute monarchs.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > doesn't make a whole lot of sense to refer to heads of state as having the wealth of the state Caesar Augustus was personally very, very rich. The British Crown has, similarly, its own private assets.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    The British Crown is barely a billionaire. Augustus may have been independently wealthy, I'm just saying don't attribute the wealth of the state to him as well.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > British Crown is barely a billionaire I'm using the Crown to illustrate the difference between the personal assets of a head of state and the assets of their state. > just saying don't attribute the wealth of the state to him as well The SCMP article you're responding to makes it clear they aren't doing this.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        Sort of. But they're also trying to convert percentages of much poorer and much smaller empires of yore into percentages of today's GWP.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > The British Crown is barely a billionaire. The Crown is a billionaire many, many times over. The monarch as an individual may or may not be "barely a billionaire", depending on how you look at things.

mmcwilliams 3y ago

This is an odd take. Today on Twitter I saw an ad for a whites-only dating service with the photo of a celebrity who very likely did not endorse the company with the use of a racial slur (with an "r" at the end). Whatever you think about the "moral standards" of the companies in question, it makes sense that they would not want to put their brand on the same platform that would serve these ads alongside theirs. That doesn't seem to be political maneuvering but very basic advertising sense.

roenxi 3y ago
Bit of tell, isn't it? The advertisers were fine with that, nytimes.com didn't write an article about it, etcetera.
- mmcwilliams 3y ago
  Isn't the fact that advertisers are leaving evidence that they aren't fine with that? I'm not sure I follow.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    You're not agreeing with nytimes.com - they think that Musk's tweets are the issue here. You're suggesting it is who Twitter accepts ads from. And I'm suggesting that it is likely nytimes.com - or the companies reported on, or both - are engaged in political manoeuvring because we know their moral standards are remarkably low. if it means they can get eyeballs where they want them. If companies were motivated more by not wanting to associate with caucasian dating sites (although to be honest why that would be a problem I don't see, what is next - banning gay dating sites? People have weird preferences and there are dating sites for all of them) then presumably the Times would be obliged to report on that.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
It matters for the same reason that ads work- subconsciously. Seeing an Apple ad next to racial slurs means you are more likely to think of racial slurs when you think of Apple, or Apple when you think of racial slurs. Apple obviously doesn't agree with or are they responsible for those views but we can't change how human minds work. At the end of the day they do not want the association in people's heads.

iamdbtoo 3y ago

> These companies have bottom-of-the-barrel moral standards and don't care what one person on Twitter is Tweeting. Advertisers have cared about placement for as long as advertising has existed.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Advertisers have cared about placement for as long as advertising has existed And advertising executives care about not having to monitor Elon's Twitter account in case he tweets something stupid on a Saturday.

manicennui 3y ago

And the gold medal in mental gymnastics goes to... Twitter has never been a great platform to advertise on, the quality of the advertisers has dropped dramatically this year, and companies are distancing themselves from the clown show. There is no secret conspiracy. Advertising on Twitter just doesn't make sense.

TerrifiedMouse 3y ago

> 1. These companies have bottom-of-the-barrel moral standards and don't care what one person on Twitter is Tweeting. This has to be political manoeuvring of some sort. Or they just don’t want their brand associated with such posts. As kids these days say, “They don’t want no smoke”. These companies are about making money. Getting associated with controversial stuff is bad for business.