4 ms·
I mean beyond that the ads don't literally need to appear next to the racist tweets for advertisers to consider the entire platform poisoned by the behavior of
by jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
I mean beyond that the ads don't literally need to appear next to the racist tweets for advertisers to consider the entire platform poisoned by the behavior of Elon.
This is one of those nerd snipe "but you didn't say simon says" defenses that no one in the real world actually gives a shit about. Elon has shown his face, advertisers don't want their brands associated with that. It's that simple.
- kstrauser 3y agoI agree with all that. I doubt Apple, IBM, etc. saw the Media Matters report and took it at face value, then redirected their advertising budgets without checking into it on their own. In fact, I'd say it's a given that they had marketing people doing their own reload-and-count exercises. And when they did, they came up with a number that was greater than their comfort level. All platforms will have some awfulness. There's no way around it. If Twitter had a trillion good posts and 1 bad one, no one would bat an eye. It's a rounding error; things happen. But advertisers have at least an informal idea of how much badness is too much, and Twitter crossed. That's the end of the story. Apple and IBM et al ran the numbers and decided that Twitter's content is too tainted for them to want to associate with it. And because free market, they decided not to any more.