I think the reason he's bashing Disney is because they're a pretty inclusive company and currently at odds with the conservative governor of Florida. So it's a move that will resonate very well with the community that remains on Twitter.
"I demand that you continue funding my social media site!"
Elon seems to have felt untouchable for a long time. There is a limit to how much people will overlook in the pursuit of money but let's be real here - Disney is trying to portray itself as a family company. Basically anything that happens on Twitter at this point is pretty much not family friendly. Elon being Elon might have given Disney an easy excuse to back out of ad buys on a platform they don't see a large enough target market using.
So, I've been off Twitter since last November, but before I went, until I blocked him, virtually every Musk tweet was showing up in the algorithmic feed for me, and it was constantly suggesting I follow him. And, like, a lot of the material he's been tweeting lately is very far from family friendly, unless you're a rather odd and frightening family.
(Of course, possibly it doesn't do the Musk hyperpromotion thing anymore.)
I recently re-downloaded Twitter to give it another chance and I can confirm it does still promote Elon's posts everywhere. Even when I have select "Show less like this" etc.
The main buzz of Twitter is adult content (not perverse, just for adults). So there aren't really any kids to advertise to on the platform and basically anything can show up in the algorithmic feeds.
I think it's reasonable to ask where the line is. Disney has no problems advertising on platforms currently being sued for distributing child abuse material...
The line is probably "Elon was an asshole about everything in general" while Zuck is way more low profile. Clearly it isn't just an idealogical dispute or they would suspend from Meta too.
Not exactly - perhaps if you only look at the public statements made by the CEOs.
If you look at how Meta spends money, they spend billions per year in moderation and brand-safety technology and people and processes.
Meanwhile, in the Twitter -> X transformation, these roles were all but eliminated.
And yes, one CEO says "it is important we get this right" and the other one says "fuck it all", then it's more "signaling priorities" than "virtue signaling".
The problem is fundamental to any jpeg uploading website. For the computer it is just a bunch of numbers. You need a human brain or something imitating the brain for the computer to understand the meaning of the arrangement of numbers.
Yes, their moderation is not 100% and companies can be sued for any reason. AFAICT there has not been a finding in these lawsuits, it’s probably not a smart idea to use the existence of a lawsuit as evidence that something nefarious has happened.
And also yes, I am using evidence of how they spend their money as an indication of their intent. It’s the embodiment of putting their money where their mouth is.
That's true, but it's dependent on people maintaining personal ethics. Unfortunately the incentives are aligned with not maintaining ethics so you can make more money. I've had this discussion with a coworker plenty of times. His argument is regulation makes capitalism safer and the best option we have, while I argue that "after the fact" regulation only prevents someone from repeating someone else's unethical strategy and most likely the initial, unethical party will not really be punished for doing what wasn't illegal at the time. Maybe they get fined, but nowhere near the revenue they generated with the unethical strategy.
Of course! And I support anyone who talks with their wallet, but that's not what's going on here...
If Bob has a personal problem with Musk, then let it be know. I could totally understand that, especially after Musk's recent interviews.
But hiding behind a virtue signalling flex when Disney are actively supporting platforms that are as bad or worse is straight up hypocrisy.
Even if we ignore the child abuse and focus on antisemitism, it doesn't take long to find out how bad Facebook is:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58058428
Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases - 2 August 2021
"Facebook was the worst performer, CCDH said, failing to act on 89% of posts."
Similar articles can be found on The Guardian, NPR, and many others.
"By him taking the position that he took in quite a public manner, we just felt that the association with that position, and with Elon Musk, and X was not necessarily a positive one for us and we decided we would pull our advertising."
This is in reference Musk's 'anti-Semitic' tweet. So instead of just voting with his wallet, Bob has turned it into a virtue flex, which would also be fine if they weren't actively supporting other platforms that are known to be far worse. (And that's ignoring Meta's issues with child abuse)
> So instead of just voting with his wallet, Bob has turned it into a virtue flex
No. There's no need to flex anything. All he's done is distance Disney from the bad smell around Musk and Twitter.
If that's all Bob Iger needs to do to make Disney look better (or at least avoid looking worse) then maybe Musk should have a think about getting himself under control.
Pretending to do the right thing whilst actively doing the exact opposite might make Disney look better to anyone not paying attention but it's not marketing, it's just lying.
Through his antics, his moronic public statements, and the changes he made to the platform, Musk created the conditions that resulted in Disney pulling its advertising from Twitter.
The End.
All that remains for Musk to do now is to grow up and take responsibility for this outcome.
But, given that he has told his customers to "go fuck themselves", it seems unlikely that he will take responsibility any time soon.
Commenting on Disney paying money to an antisemetic company that distributes child abuse material is irrelevant in a thread about Disney not paying money to an allegedly antisemetic company.
> but you've made it clear that you have no problems with child abuse, anti-Semitism, or hypocrisy.
What an absurdly childish response to GP’s comments. GP has made none of those things “clear” and it’s disgusting that you would stoop to such a gross, inflammatory accusation because you’re upset about an internet argument.
Grow up or log off. This crap is a really, really ugly look for you.
It's an ugly look for me to suggest that someone has strange priorities if they're defending Disney for paying money to an antisemetic company that distributes child abuse material? I guess we're only allowed to judge antisemetic companies if they're owned by Elon Musk...
It's an ugly look for you to look the other way. Silence is violence remember.
Musk's antisemitic Tweet (no quotes, it was antisemitic) was also racist. He endorsed a discredited canard against Jews, namely: replacement theory. That's a completely baseless white supremacist claim that Jews are engineering demographic change against white people in America. Musk said it was the truth. How would one reinterpret that to doubt the antisemitism and racism in that? Punishing that kind of bigotry is no "flex." It is basic decency.
I mean, I think _intent_, and scale, probably comes into it. Clearly, Facebook does not want this sort of material; its existence is merely a failure of moderation, and something that advertisers can lean on Facebook to fix. It also, realistically, isn't at all prominent; Facebook is not going to abruptly shove it in the face of 165 million people. On the other hand, Musk himself in the past few weeks has posted "Great Replacement" and Pizzagate far-right conspiracy bullshit, broadcasting it to his 165 million followers. Based on this alone, I think most reasonable people would doubt that Twitter has any intention of cleaning up its Nazi problem.
What kind of psychosis is Elon experiencing thinking advertisers don't have the right to pick where they want to advertise? I thought the US is a free country where one can do business with whom one wants.
Let's see, Disney started out entertaining and ended up with serious broadcast TV stations, operating news departments publishing overwhelmingly fact-checked information, and their appeal to the consuming public has been growing at a healthy pace off and on for decades.
OTOH, Twitter was mainly a gossip rag a year or two ago, more amusing than entertaining, and it has gone downhill steadily since. Nothing like the kind of fact-checking you would need from a reliable information source, and the overall appeal just isn't the same any more. And that was people who loved Twitter.
I did not place them relatively, rather I stated that neither deserves any elevation. Are you assuming I have a preference for one of the companies? Certainly the parent of my comment has strong opinions about both
People are talking about the bad things both companies do in these threads, where do you see the whataboutism?
From the comment guidelines
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Not sure what your link has to do with any "questionable content decisions" Disney has made, but it's hilarious that her alternative is to let her child play Minecraft and watch YouTube instead of "Wizards of Waverly Place". Thank goodness she isn't exposed to the adult sarcasm of Disney tween content, just the wholesome world of YouTube!
With Musk now bringing back Alex Jones and pushing pro Russia stuff I think it may for the best if X just goes bust. Musk does great cars and rockets but not really social media.
