4 ms·
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 f
by 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 agoThis 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 agoThe 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]