4 ms·

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 wit

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.

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.