4 ms·

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

by 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.
    - SideQuark 2y ago
      >stirring up a controversy about the contents of the platform So reporting news that the recipients are interested in is not "stirring up controversy"? Do you not see which of you vs NBC is being dishonest? >I'm also quite confident that NBC News didn't dare to question the data It's good that you are quite confident about things you have no knowledge about. News organizations generally follow principles that carry far more weight for accuracy than unfounded internet opinions. >Wikipedia reports such criticism of the SPLC Selective reading much? If you're listing a Wikipedia article to garner trust in your argument, at least don't selectively read the part you like and ignore the parts you don't. Some parts you ignored: "the SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups (organizations that "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics") and anti-government extremists are widely relied upon by academic and media sources" Why would academia rely on them, given that the prime currency in academia is intellectual honesty? Oh yeah, because SLPC is well-respected in the assessment of Nazi and other hate speech. "As of 2023, SPLC has earned the GuideStar Gold Seal of Transparency, which is given to organizations that voluntarily share their financials and "highlight their commitment to inclusivity to gain funders' trust and support." This is stark contrast to Musk hiding and lying about Twitter finances, blocking access to data to make it harder for researchers to more clearly detail the rise in hate speech (yet they do it anyway - simply use Google scholar and look for twitter nazi hate speech for thousands of papers on the topic, with all the data you can possibly desire). I guess you ignored the list of a dozen+ large cases they won against groups including the KKK (many times), the White Aryan Resistance, Aryan Nation, The Daily Stormer, and others. So are you cherry picking the one point you like ad ignoring the rest because you support all these other groups? Or do you love Musk+Twitter so much that you'll go to this length to defend him from the truth in this case, even if you have to make claims you have no proof for? It's clear how intellectual dishonesty has led to you have beliefs that are not accrued from honest assessment the evidence before you. If you want some honest evidence, spend some time on Google Scholar reading the ample peer reviewed work on what Musk had brought to Twitter. My guess is you'll either not put in the work to improve your understanding, or you'll simply ignore proper evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs. Good luck. To start you off here's two articles (dig on scihub if you actually want to read them) that are highly cited (and if you check citing articles, they're cited because they're accurate) [1],[2]. From the abstracts (data in papers) [1] "We examine the levels of hate speech and prevalence of bots before and after Musk's acquisition of the platform. We find that hate speech rose dramatically upon Musk purchasing Twitter and the prevalence of most types of bots increased, while the prevalence of astroturf bots decreased." [2] "Utilizing the configuration model to generate random retweet networks, we successfully found a direct link between Twitter users who retweet Musk and users who retweet several SPLC-defined hate groups. Results show that Musk’s Tweets and general rhetoric have a potential appeal to hateful users on Twitter." When the platform leader appeals to hate groups, as this paper demonstrated, it's clear how we got here. You might want to read the science (and how to replicate it) before you make more unchecked claims. I have no further interest in such dishonesty. Have a good day. [1] https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/22222 https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/22222 [2] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-53503-1_22 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-53503-1_...
- Zigurd 2y ago
  > I'm also not convinced that advertisers are afraid of showing their ads close to "questionable" contents. Basically you are saying that brand safety, something ad-supported social media assiduously protects, is a misplaced concern? I guess a lot of people, including a few that run a few social media sites, don't understand why all their ads are for freeze dried food in buckets and overpriced gold coins.
  - throw310822 2y ago
    No, I am saying that what threatens "brand safety" is attacks by organizations via the media. (See an example in my other answer about the NBC News article). Those organizations have the power to decide your politics by threatening to shame your advertisers for the fact that they advertise on your platform. They get to decide which content is "problematic" and which platforms should be singled out. And if a self-appointed "anti-hate group" says that there are too many nazis on a platform, the advertisers are not going to take the risk of arguing that the numbers are irrelevant or that they're not convinced.
    - Zigurd 2y ago
      What's not problematic about Andrew Anglin? What business would want to appear next to him? When the guy who owns outright a social media site welcomes people like Anglin, do you really think anyone needs to decide someone's politics? Amusing fact: When Linda Yaccarino ran all of NBCUniversal's ad sales, NBCUniversal was a member of GARM.

by jarsin 2y ago

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.
  - SideQuark 2y ago
    >stirring up a controversy about the contents of the platform So reporting news that the recipients are interested in is not "stirring up controversy"? Do you not see which of you vs NBC is being dishonest? >I'm also quite confident that NBC News didn't dare to question the data It's good that you are quite confident about things you have no knowledge about. News organizations generally follow principles that carry far more weight for accuracy than unfounded internet opinions. >Wikipedia reports such criticism of the SPLC Selective reading much? If you're listing a Wikipedia article to garner trust in your argument, at least don't selectively read the part you like and ignore the parts you don't. Some parts you ignored: "the SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups (organizations that "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics") and anti-government extremists are widely relied upon by academic and media sources" Why would academia rely on them, given that the prime currency in academia is intellectual honesty? Oh yeah, because SLPC is well-respected in the assessment of Nazi and other hate speech. "As of 2023, SPLC has earned the GuideStar Gold Seal of Transparency, which is given to organizations that voluntarily share their financials and "highlight their commitment to inclusivity to gain funders' trust and support." This is stark contrast to Musk hiding and lying about Twitter finances, blocking access to data to make it harder for researchers to more clearly detail the rise in hate speech (yet they do it anyway - simply use Google scholar and look for twitter nazi hate speech for thousands of papers on the topic, with all the data you can possibly desire). I guess you ignored the list of a dozen+ large cases they won against groups including the KKK (many times), the White Aryan Resistance, Aryan Nation, The Daily Stormer, and others. So are you cherry picking the one point you like ad ignoring the rest because you support all these other groups? Or do you love Musk+Twitter so much that you'll go to this length to defend him from the truth in this case, even if you have to make claims you have no proof for? It's clear how intellectual dishonesty has led to you have beliefs that are not accrued from honest assessment the evidence before you. If you want some honest evidence, spend some time on Google Scholar reading the ample peer reviewed work on what Musk had brought to Twitter. My guess is you'll either not put in the work to improve your understanding, or you'll simply ignore proper evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs. Good luck. To start you off here's two articles (dig on scihub if you actually want to read them) that are highly cited (and if you check citing articles, they're cited because they're accurate) [1],[2]. From the abstracts (data in papers) [1] "We examine the levels of hate speech and prevalence of bots before and after Musk's acquisition of the platform. We find that hate speech rose dramatically upon Musk purchasing Twitter and the prevalence of most types of bots increased, while the prevalence of astroturf bots decreased." [2] "Utilizing the configuration model to generate random retweet networks, we successfully found a direct link between Twitter users who retweet Musk and users who retweet several SPLC-defined hate groups. Results show that Musk’s Tweets and general rhetoric have a potential appeal to hateful users on Twitter." When the platform leader appeals to hate groups, as this paper demonstrated, it's clear how we got here. You might want to read the science (and how to replicate it) before you make more unchecked claims. I have no further interest in such dishonesty. Have a good day. [1] https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/22222 https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/22222 [2] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-53503-1_22 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-53503-1_...
Zigurd 2y ago
> I'm also not convinced that advertisers are afraid of showing their ads close to "questionable" contents. Basically you are saying that brand safety, something ad-supported social media assiduously protects, is a misplaced concern? I guess a lot of people, including a few that run a few social media sites, don't understand why all their ads are for freeze dried food in buckets and overpriced gold coins.
- throw310822 2y ago
  No, I am saying that what threatens "brand safety" is attacks by organizations via the media. (See an example in my other answer about the NBC News article). Those organizations have the power to decide your politics by threatening to shame your advertisers for the fact that they advertise on your platform. They get to decide which content is "problematic" and which platforms should be singled out. And if a self-appointed "anti-hate group" says that there are too many nazis on a platform, the advertisers are not going to take the risk of arguing that the numbers are irrelevant or that they're not convinced.
  - Zigurd 2y ago
    What's not problematic about Andrew Anglin? What business would want to appear next to him? When the guy who owns outright a social media site welcomes people like Anglin, do you really think anyone needs to decide someone's politics? Amusing fact: When Linda Yaccarino ran all of NBCUniversal's ad sales, NBCUniversal was a member of GARM.