5 ms·

Elon Musk's X just sued a nonprofit advertising group out of existence

16 points by wumeow 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
chabes 2y ago
Free speech for me and not for thee
brodouevencode 2y ago
I'm convinced there are no more "good guys".
- johntortugo 2y ago
  I think there never was.
  - brodouevencode 2y ago
    Probably. It was just that previously the victor wrote the history books, whereas now everyone has access to all the information all the time. Admittedly my comment is a bit trite - purity contests are just as despicable.
- foxyv 2y ago
  Tim Walz seems pretty upstanding.
jarsin 2y ago
I'm not a Musk follower, but it really seems he is very political after buying twitter. Why shouldn't a group be able to boycott a site owned by someone who is using it for obvious political purposes?
- throw310822 2y ago
  Premise: I totally disagree with Musk's political stances and I think that either he's completely insincere about his goals or completely unfit to run a social media company. However, I'm also not convinced that advertisers are afraid of showing their ads close to "questionable" contents. Users won't really notice unless they're the consumers of that content anyway; plus, customers boycotting a brand is not something that happens by itself, it's usually a coordinated action. I'm more of the idea that advertisers are afraid to be victim of coordinated attacks from various groups that describe themselves as concerned with fundamental ethical principles (e.g. anti-racism, minority rights) but have in fact a very clear political leaning. In essence, it is easy for a medium-sized media like Twitter to be blackmailed into falling in rank with what these groups want, under threat of having their source of income destroyed by scaring off their clients.
  - SideQuark 2y ago
    > I'm also not convinced that advertisers are afraid of showing their ads close to "questionable" contents. Really? How many large corporations ran ads next to content like 4chan has hosted long before more modern boycott ideas took hold? How many CEOs personally want their content running and supporting verified Nazi accounts [1] on Twitter? It could well be that companies join such add non-profits for the same reason they join open-source non-profits or non-profits that assist the the company in any of a legion of choices: so the company doesn't have to spend as much in house money to keep informed of what is going on. Do you think all companies that subscribe the Wall Street Journal, or Nature, or MIT Tech Review, make zero decisions utilizing information they find? My guess is this, like pretty much all Musk lawsuits, amount to more embarrassment for Musk (recall how he was forced to buy Twitter in the first place...) [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-musk-nazi-extremist-white-nationalist-accounts-rcna145020 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-mus...
    - throw310822 2y ago
      The article you link is exactly what I was talking about: some organization (different from the brand customers) stirring up a controversy about the contents of the platform. In this case, buried half way in the article, some comments from the "deputy director for data analytics of the anti-hate group Southern Poverty Law Center" make clear that the SLPC is the source of the data and therefore of the whole article. (I'm also quite confident that NBC News didn't dare to question the data or the information provided by an "anti-hate group".) Wikipedia reports such criticism of the SPLC: "The SPLC's listings have also been criticized by those who argue that some of the SPLC's listings are overbroad, politically motivated, or unwarranted. The organization has also been accused of an overindulgent use of funds, leading some employees to call its headquarters "Poverty Palace"". Ah but there's more. The article, obviously still drawing from SLPC's report (again without saying so explicitly), proceeds detailing the names of some of the brands that have advertised alongside said contents: "NBC News found ads running on 74 of the 150 premium accounts, either on their profile pages or in the replies below their posts. The advertisers included SiriusXM, The Hollywood Reporter and Cisco subsidiary Splunk. SiriusXM declined to comment. Penske Media, the owner of The Hollywood Reporter, declined to comment. Splunk did not respond to requests for comment sent by email." So these brands have been warned.
throw310822 2y ago
"GARM is a small, not-for-profit initiative" - is the definition of it given on the World Federation of Advertisers's website. The WFA was running GARM ("WFA therefore is making the difficult decision to discontinue GARM activities"), and the WFA describes itself as "a global association that represents over 150 of the world’s biggest brands and more than 60 national advertiser associations worldwide. Together, they create a peer-to-peer network of the world's best marketers". So what is it? A small non-profit run by an association that represents 150 of the world's biggest brands and more than 60 national advertisers associations? https://wfanet.org/leadership/garm/about-garm https://wfanet.org/leadership/garm/about-garm
- Zigurd 2y ago
  How many tech industry giants work togethere through small nonprofits created for open source project support or security collaboration? GARM was about brand safety.

16 points by wumeow 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

chabes 2y ago

Free speech for me and not for thee

brodouevencode 2y ago

I'm convinced there are no more "good guys".

johntortugo 2y ago
I think there never was.
- brodouevencode 2y ago
  Probably. It was just that previously the victor wrote the history books, whereas now everyone has access to all the information all the time. Admittedly my comment is a bit trite - purity contests are just as despicable.
foxyv 2y ago
Tim Walz seems pretty upstanding.

jarsin 2y ago

I'm not a Musk follower, but it really seems he is very political after buying twitter. Why shouldn't a group be able to boycott a site owned by someone who is using it for obvious political purposes?

throw310822 2y ago
Premise: I totally disagree with Musk's political stances and I think that either he's completely insincere about his goals or completely unfit to run a social media company. However, I'm also not convinced that advertisers are afraid of showing their ads close to "questionable" contents. Users won't really notice unless they're the consumers of that content anyway; plus, customers boycotting a brand is not something that happens by itself, it's usually a coordinated action. I'm more of the idea that advertisers are afraid to be victim of coordinated attacks from various groups that describe themselves as concerned with fundamental ethical principles (e.g. anti-racism, minority rights) but have in fact a very clear political leaning. In essence, it is easy for a medium-sized media like Twitter to be blackmailed into falling in rank with what these groups want, under threat of having their source of income destroyed by scaring off their clients.
- SideQuark 2y ago
  > I'm also not convinced that advertisers are afraid of showing their ads close to "questionable" contents. Really? How many large corporations ran ads next to content like 4chan has hosted long before more modern boycott ideas took hold? How many CEOs personally want their content running and supporting verified Nazi accounts [1] on Twitter? It could well be that companies join such add non-profits for the same reason they join open-source non-profits or non-profits that assist the the company in any of a legion of choices: so the company doesn't have to spend as much in house money to keep informed of what is going on. Do you think all companies that subscribe the Wall Street Journal, or Nature, or MIT Tech Review, make zero decisions utilizing information they find? My guess is this, like pretty much all Musk lawsuits, amount to more embarrassment for Musk (recall how he was forced to buy Twitter in the first place...) [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-musk-nazi-extremist-white-nationalist-accounts-rcna145020 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-mus...
  - throw310822 2y ago
    The article you link is exactly what I was talking about: some organization (different from the brand customers) stirring up a controversy about the contents of the platform. In this case, buried half way in the article, some comments from the "deputy director for data analytics of the anti-hate group Southern Poverty Law Center" make clear that the SLPC is the source of the data and therefore of the whole article. (I'm also quite confident that NBC News didn't dare to question the data or the information provided by an "anti-hate group".) Wikipedia reports such criticism of the SPLC: "The SPLC's listings have also been criticized by those who argue that some of the SPLC's listings are overbroad, politically motivated, or unwarranted. The organization has also been accused of an overindulgent use of funds, leading some employees to call its headquarters "Poverty Palace"". Ah but there's more. The article, obviously still drawing from SLPC's report (again without saying so explicitly), proceeds detailing the names of some of the brands that have advertised alongside said contents: "NBC News found ads running on 74 of the 150 premium accounts, either on their profile pages or in the replies below their posts. The advertisers included SiriusXM, The Hollywood Reporter and Cisco subsidiary Splunk. SiriusXM declined to comment. Penske Media, the owner of The Hollywood Reporter, declined to comment. Splunk did not respond to requests for comment sent by email." So these brands have been warned.

throw310822 2y ago

"GARM is a small, not-for-profit initiative" - is the definition of it given on the World Federation of Advertisers's website. The WFA was running GARM ("WFA therefore is making the difficult decision to discontinue GARM activities"), and the WFA describes itself as "a global association that represents over 150 of the world’s biggest brands and more than 60 national advertiser associations worldwide. Together, they create a peer-to-peer network of the world's best marketers". So what is it? A small non-profit run by an association that represents 150 of the world's biggest brands and more than 60 national advertisers associations? https://wfanet.org/leadership/garm/about-garm https://wfanet.org/leadership/garm/about-garm

Zigurd 2y ago
How many tech industry giants work togethere through small nonprofits created for open source project support or security collaboration? GARM was about brand safety.