Musk has continued to place his personal proclivity for right-wing content and influencers over brand – and really overall user – safety. For example, last month, Musk personally intervened to restore a right-wing influencer's account after they were suspended for posting photos of child exploitation.
So it's not just Nazi-compatible ideas. It's straight out Nazi symbolism.
I really don't get these people - even if you believe the Nazis were right, you know they are the most hated historical faction in the world. Wouldn't it be better to advocate their ideas without explicitly associating yourself with them, just to avoid the (completely justified) knee-jerk reaction?
Wouldn’t it be better to advocate their ideas without explicitly associating yourself with them, just to avoid the (completely justified) knee-jerk reaction?
Lunatics always show up in my For You feed on Twitter. I always tag the company with a screenshot of the offending content with the advertisement. Lately it’s been weird advertisements. Shitty gambling apps, religious and personal accounts promoting their personal brand. So they likely don’t care.
Also I’ll never call Twitter anything but Twitter.
That's what I use Twitter for too but what intrudes my feed is mostly memes and cat videos. While it may be true my experience however isn't that they're pushing right wing content to everyone because I'm not seeing it.
It’s amazing there are still so many brands and social media strategists who seem in denial about what’s happening even as they watch their customer engagement on Twitter/X evaporate before their very eyes.
I don't think hate speech necessarily falls into the domain of free speech. It falls into the domain of people don't like it so we don't want to be associated with it.
Anyway yet again, free speech only exists between you and the government. If corporations want to disassociate themselves with the business or individual because they allow people to say things they don't like, that's not violation of free speech.
Furthermore, one organization that had ads placed on this content claimed that it wasn't an X advertiser at all. In a statement provided to CNN, University of Maryland’s associate athletic director told the outlet that Maryland Football hasn't run a paid ad campaign on X since 2021.
Interesting snippet. It would be very interesting to know how and why that happened.
No idea. It is a kind of defamation but I think you'd struggle to prove it. You could, however, get shedloads of free publicity by banging on about it for clickbait.
Is this news to anyone? Elon Musk is a literal Nazi. Every dollar going there supports fascism. I don't get how you can have such a high profile person who is like "Hey, I'm a Nazi, and I sell Nazi shit!" and still be surprised.
That was always the point. He tried to shame Twitter into giving the far-right a credible platform and in the process, accidentally comitted to buying the site.
Everything else has just been him awkwardly trying to minimise his financial losses and hide that he's actually a dumbfuck.
They seriously need to put her face as the last image on the Wikipedia page for sycophant. The pattern is her lagging response with hollow corporate, "girlboss" speak to frame a random 2am gut response from elon as a considered business decision. Her statements to justify his BS are BURSTING with double speak and circular nothingness.
Nope. I think it's a "billionaire who isn't half as smart as he thinks" situation. It's his shoddily built submarine, ready to fail catastrophically at any moment.
After all, has "New Coke" ever worked for a website? Once those users have found somewhere else, they're never coming back.
He wanted free speech with no censorship. I get it, but he also wants to make a profit. So this is was happens, I hope him and the almighty shareholders are ok with it.
Well - 79% of 'the almighty shareholders' is Elon Musk, and I somehow get the impression that as long as he is convinced that he's doing exactly the right things nothing will change. The next biggest stakeholders are Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal (5.7%), Oracle founder Larry Ellison (3.0%), Jack Dorsey (3.0%), Sequoia Capital (2.4%), and Vy Capital (2.1%) - and they've all been publicly silent on the topic of twitter self destruction - I think they've transitioned into train-wreck mode where they are in such disbelief about what they are witnessing that they aren't able to articulate opinions about it.
Dorsey agrees with Musk on this stuff. He has said before that he didn't want to ban Trump after J6 and that he was against banning Nazi accounts, but did it because it was a public company, and they kinda had to.
Now he and his buddies are trying to roll out their own social media protocol, bluesky, which is built specifically to not allow Nazis to be banned.
Maybe they are all shorting it big in their alt accounts because they know that the SEC fines will be trivial next to the money they will make. Also, that not a single one of them would see the inside of a court room.
Years ago I worked for a company that had ads appear on Breitbart. Retargeted display, not a direct buy on the site. People would screenshot the ads and light up our Twitter complaining we were directly supporting hate speech etc, so we asked our demand partner to stop buying there to avoid negative engagement on our social.
If your site gets a critical mass of negative attention brands can shut down your ability to be commercially viable, and effectively censor the content in a way.