4 ms·

Brand reputation. Every brand that chooses to use X implicitly supports X, even if they're not verified & paying X money.

crims0n 6mo ago
Going against the network effect out of principal doesn't seem to be a winning strategy when the goal is to raise awareness about issues.
loeg 6mo ago
Does anyone seriously think EFF posting to X yesterday tarnished their brand? Be real.
- nickthegreek 6mo ago
  Yes, people do in fact judge others for their associations. If you don't that is fine but I imagine you would also hold the view that not posting on X shouldn't be controversial then either.
- diath 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - 650REDHAIR 6mo ago
    Who is "normal" in this context? Because people who support the EFF's mission are pretty clued into what is happening and do care.
  - loeg 6mo ago
    [flagged]
- horacemorace 6mo ago
  My neighbor blares Fox in their kitchen every day. I view them with the same flavor of suspicion as someone who posts there.
- jdashg 6mo ago
  I do, yeah. Hope that helps!
- AlexAplin 6mo ago
  The advertisers that evaporated and left behind a lot of no label dropshipping scams seem to think so. Did a lot of them eventually come back because there is some audience to squeeze numbers from? Sure, but I also wouldn't negate that many didn't and aren't coming back because it is Elon's playground now.
- coldpie 6mo ago
  Yeah, I do. People & brands having a link to an X account is a huge red flag. It's a public statement that you support child pornography and the end of democracy in the US. That's going to tarnish a brand pretty majorly.
  - pie_flavor 6mo ago
    Twitter has become a lot better since people who say truly insane things like this have left. What on earth does Twitter have to do with child pornography? What kind of misinformation have you been reading?
    - y0eswddl 6mo ago
      https://www.law.com/therecorder/2026/03/18/xai-sued-over-alleged-child-exploitation-content-generated-on-grok-platform-/ https://www.law.com/therecorder/2026/03/18/xai-sued-over-all...
- 650REDHAIR 6mo ago
  Yes. I applaud the move and only wish they would have done it sooner.
- lynndotpy 6mo ago
  Yes, absolutely. The CEO of X did Nazi salutes and promotes white genocide narratives, Grok has created posts praising Hitler, and when people used Grok to publicly generate CSAM for free, they fixed it by putting it behind a subscription platform. The only people I know and respect who are still on X are sex workers, because X is still the most porn-friendly social media site. When you say "Be real", you're pleading with people to take your statement more seriously. But it's simply the case that people have very strong and negative opinions about nazis and child pornography.
  - dogemaster2027 6mo ago
    [flagged]
  - episode404 6mo ago
    [flagged]
rockemsockem 6mo ago
That is idiotic.
spopejoy 6mo ago
> Brand reputation They said nothing of this in TFA, all they talked about was decimated view count. The obvious conclusion is X is censoring them, like they pretty much do to anybody that Elon feels like censoring.

crims0n 6mo ago

Going against the network effect out of principal doesn't seem to be a winning strategy when the goal is to raise awareness about issues.

loeg 6mo ago

Does anyone seriously think EFF posting to X yesterday tarnished their brand? Be real.

nickthegreek 6mo ago
Yes, people do in fact judge others for their associations. If you don't that is fine but I imagine you would also hold the view that not posting on X shouldn't be controversial then either.
diath 6mo ago
[flagged]
- 650REDHAIR 6mo ago
  Who is "normal" in this context? Because people who support the EFF's mission are pretty clued into what is happening and do care.
- loeg 6mo ago
  [flagged]
horacemorace 6mo ago
My neighbor blares Fox in their kitchen every day. I view them with the same flavor of suspicion as someone who posts there.
jdashg 6mo ago
I do, yeah. Hope that helps!
AlexAplin 6mo ago
The advertisers that evaporated and left behind a lot of no label dropshipping scams seem to think so. Did a lot of them eventually come back because there is some audience to squeeze numbers from? Sure, but I also wouldn't negate that many didn't and aren't coming back because it is Elon's playground now.
coldpie 6mo ago
Yeah, I do. People & brands having a link to an X account is a huge red flag. It's a public statement that you support child pornography and the end of democracy in the US. That's going to tarnish a brand pretty majorly.
- pie_flavor 6mo ago
  Twitter has become a lot better since people who say truly insane things like this have left. What on earth does Twitter have to do with child pornography? What kind of misinformation have you been reading?
  - y0eswddl 6mo ago
    https://www.law.com/therecorder/2026/03/18/xai-sued-over-alleged-child-exploitation-content-generated-on-grok-platform-/ https://www.law.com/therecorder/2026/03/18/xai-sued-over-all...
650REDHAIR 6mo ago
Yes. I applaud the move and only wish they would have done it sooner.
lynndotpy 6mo ago
Yes, absolutely. The CEO of X did Nazi salutes and promotes white genocide narratives, Grok has created posts praising Hitler, and when people used Grok to publicly generate CSAM for free, they fixed it by putting it behind a subscription platform. The only people I know and respect who are still on X are sex workers, because X is still the most porn-friendly social media site. When you say "Be real", you're pleading with people to take your statement more seriously. But it's simply the case that people have very strong and negative opinions about nazis and child pornography.
- dogemaster2027 6mo ago
  [flagged]
- episode404 6mo ago
  [flagged]

rockemsockem 6mo ago

That is idiotic.

spopejoy 6mo ago

> Brand reputation They said nothing of this in TFA, all they talked about was decimated view count. The obvious conclusion is X is censoring them, like they pretty much do to anybody that Elon feels like censoring.