8 ms·

Never understood this take. Telling companies to stop pressuring them with ad dollars is ideologically consistent. He's saying if you can't handle freedom of ex

by dmix 3y ago

Never understood this take. Telling companies to stop pressuring them with ad dollars is ideologically consistent. He's saying if you can't handle freedom of expression on the platform then don't use the platform. He's not forcing them to do anything, it's the other way around. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant by "hostage". Not sure who is being held hostage. Being pro-mega corporations moderating what conversations on the internet is allowable is a weird thing to be in vogue. Telling companies that don't want to be associated with the content to just walk away is the right choice, even if it hurts the business. I'd also rather see Twitter die than Disney and Co being the arbiters of discussion. We already have Facebook and Reddit for that, and neither are any better for generating healthy societal discourse.

Volundr 3y ago
He calls them not spending their add money on Twitter "blackmail" and goes on to say they will kill the company. That doesn't sound like "if you can't handle freedom of expression on the platform then don't use the platform." To me. They AREN'T using the platform and he's mad about it.
- dmix 3y ago
  This is silly. He obviously wants money from major advertisers. Why wouldn't he? He still runs a business and has employees to pay. That motivation is enough for him to want them to stay, yet he is clearly making a major sacrifice for his values. The stretches people to through to get upset about him is bizarre. He did enough real shit to dislike him, no need to obsessively twist everything into what it isn't just to have new things to get upset about.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >He obviously wants money from major advertisers. Why wouldn't he? He still runs a business and has employees to pay. That motivation is enough for him to want them to stay, yet he is clearly making a major sacrifice for his values. yes, we call that hypocrisy. Spouting one sentiment ("you are free to do whatever and I respect that") and then the opposite when it works againt you ("you are blackmailing me by leaving the platform and pulling your ad money. This is an invasion of speech"). It's not the worst thing he's done, but the most relevant thing to the post submitted here.
  - Volundr 3y ago
    The comment I'm replying to (your comment) says this: > He's saying if you can't handle freedom of expression on the platform then don't use the platform. Sounds like we are in agreement he is not saying that. He wants advertisers to use the platform regardless of if they can "handle it". And is indeed upset they are not.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
anigbrowl 3y ago
Oh come on. He made headlines last week for telling advertisers to go fuck themselves, then a few minutes later complained that they were doing ot bankrupt/destroy the company and saying he would put out detailed documentation on how they did it. If he does not actually want or care about their money then stop whining about bankruptcy and making sad accusations of blackmail and so on.
- dmix 3y ago
  I don't see how any of that is being inconsistent. Wanting companies to remain advertisers without bullying him into censoring users (or his own speech) is a valid position and obviously something he wants. But he doesn't have to bend over to make it happen. I highly doubt Disney etc would suddenly start coming back if he was simply polite in response to them making a very public statement about leaving. Obviously they want him to make concessions in censorship that he finds untenable and his response was to fuck off if that's their demands. He didn't buy Twitter just to run it the same way as @jack and say yes to whatever powerful company/gov agency demands of them.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Nobody owes him advertising $. If he wants to tell advertisers to go fuck themselves because they don't want to appear next to nazis that's his prerogative, but whining about how it's hurting his company is his problem.
  - wredcoll 3y ago
    > He didn't buy Twitter just to run it the same way as @jack and say yes to whatever powerful company/gov agency demands of them One of the many ironies is, of course, that musk's twitter says "yes" to government requests far more frequently than jack's did. In case you're wondering, this is one of the many reasons people dislike him in relation to twitter, he talks a lot about "free speech" but his actions are consistently about supporting only the speech he himself makes.
rsynnott 3y ago
Musk has been having temper tantrums for the last few weeks about people not advertising on his platform, Rockstar not hosting a GTA video on his platform, etc etc. He seems unhappy when people _actually_ stop using the platform.

by dmix 3y ago

Volundr 3y ago

He calls them not spending their add money on Twitter "blackmail" and goes on to say they will kill the company. That doesn't sound like "if you can't handle freedom of expression on the platform then don't use the platform." To me. They AREN'T using the platform and he's mad about it.

dmix 3y ago
This is silly. He obviously wants money from major advertisers. Why wouldn't he? He still runs a business and has employees to pay. That motivation is enough for him to want them to stay, yet he is clearly making a major sacrifice for his values. The stretches people to through to get upset about him is bizarre. He did enough real shit to dislike him, no need to obsessively twist everything into what it isn't just to have new things to get upset about.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >He obviously wants money from major advertisers. Why wouldn't he? He still runs a business and has employees to pay. That motivation is enough for him to want them to stay, yet he is clearly making a major sacrifice for his values. yes, we call that hypocrisy. Spouting one sentiment ("you are free to do whatever and I respect that") and then the opposite when it works againt you ("you are blackmailing me by leaving the platform and pulling your ad money. This is an invasion of speech"). It's not the worst thing he's done, but the most relevant thing to the post submitted here.
- Volundr 3y ago
  The comment I'm replying to (your comment) says this: > He's saying if you can't handle freedom of expression on the platform then don't use the platform. Sounds like we are in agreement he is not saying that. He wants advertisers to use the platform regardless of if they can "handle it". And is indeed upset they are not.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

anigbrowl 3y ago

Oh come on. He made headlines last week for telling advertisers to go fuck themselves, then a few minutes later complained that they were doing ot bankrupt/destroy the company and saying he would put out detailed documentation on how they did it. If he does not actually want or care about their money then stop whining about bankruptcy and making sad accusations of blackmail and so on.

dmix 3y ago
I don't see how any of that is being inconsistent. Wanting companies to remain advertisers without bullying him into censoring users (or his own speech) is a valid position and obviously something he wants. But he doesn't have to bend over to make it happen. I highly doubt Disney etc would suddenly start coming back if he was simply polite in response to them making a very public statement about leaving. Obviously they want him to make concessions in censorship that he finds untenable and his response was to fuck off if that's their demands. He didn't buy Twitter just to run it the same way as @jack and say yes to whatever powerful company/gov agency demands of them.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Nobody owes him advertising $. If he wants to tell advertisers to go fuck themselves because they don't want to appear next to nazis that's his prerogative, but whining about how it's hurting his company is his problem.
- wredcoll 3y ago
  > He didn't buy Twitter just to run it the same way as @jack and say yes to whatever powerful company/gov agency demands of them One of the many ironies is, of course, that musk's twitter says "yes" to government requests far more frequently than jack's did. In case you're wondering, this is one of the many reasons people dislike him in relation to twitter, he talks a lot about "free speech" but his actions are consistently about supporting only the speech he himself makes.

rsynnott 3y ago

Musk has been having temper tantrums for the last few weeks about people not advertising on his platform, Rockstar not hosting a GTA video on his platform, etc etc. He seems unhappy when people _actually_ stop using the platform.