Elon Musk $41B offer for Twitter
Discussion
RichTT said:
Byker28i said:
RichTT - you're graphs really need to be aligned with the rise in domestic terrorism in the US under trump, the rise of racist attacks, etc
Weirdly there's a correlation as many felt trump was giving them permission to act out their violent attacks 'good people on both sides' etc.
"Despite reports of elevated extreme-right activity in the U.S. around the election of President Donald Trump, data reveal nine deaths in eight homicides in 2017. Though average, this figure represents a 100 percent increase from 2016; the same increase was observed during President Barack Obama’s first year in office. "Weirdly there's a correlation as many felt trump was giving them permission to act out their violent attacks 'good people on both sides' etc.
The 2019 House Judiciary Committee hearing on “Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism
https://www.c-span.org/video/?459662-1/hate-crimes...
2020 was worse still
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/whit...
and Musk has encouraged the spread of hate, of disinformation, at times even amplifying it.
The Eu warned Musk about disinformation
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/oct/10...
It's now the platform of choice
https://rsf.org/en/twitter-x-elon-musk-s-transform...
So again, you can see why advertisers don't want to be associated.
Lets face it - this happened after Musk again amplified a post. If he hadn't done that then he wouldn't have the problem.
And again - he's done this repeatedly, post dodgy comments and blame everyone else.
Lets put this another way. Advertising via a number of different platforms has become a very focused affair. There was a time that it was like taking a shot in the dark. These days, the platforms provided by the big players allows you to be extremely specific and focused, Twitter is no different here. It also can be turned on and off - simply a click of a button. From what I have read, this is what has happened here.
If your profiled ad's cant be targeted to the specific group that your campaign is focused on, then it no longer becomes worthwhile. There will always be a risk that your ad gets served up with some hateful content, but the major platforms have done a huge amount in the last few years to eliminate this as much as possible. There will still be the examples that we see in the meme's, but the vast majority are extremely careful where they place ad's.
Ok, so given that the CEO of Twitter commented some pretty stupid stuff (and its far from the first time he's done this), it seems fair that the advertisers would consider a pause in their spend. Does it make sense for them to be associated with this? Is the risk of the ad appearing next to hate content something that they cannot offset? Some brands, and I would include Apple as a very good example, take their public image EXTREMELY serious. Its a very carefully crafted story. Seems fair that they pause spending.
But advertising dollars switch. Its all part of a wider campaign. Is Twitter essential to these businesses? Nah, they just switch the spend to something else. Maybe they do a few more video ad's on Facebook or something. In fact, I understand that Apple has a very effective agency that does a lot of this for them. No doubt that when the outcry stops, the dollars will start rolling in again though - its the advertising game and it can be extremely fickle.
I do struggle when people try to associate advertising spend with freedom of speech (though not directly here). Freedom of speech, here in the US anyway, is based on the right to say what you want without the fear of retribution by THE GOVERNMENT. It has no provisions for a private business. And what happens if these loonies get their way? Advertisers are forced to spend money on some platforms because of "reasons"? Does that mean we can force Microsoft to start advertising on 4Chan? Or maybe ensure that Apple ad's get served up on Twitter next to anti-semitic hateful content? As far as I see it, a lobbying organization drew attention to a situation and made it public. A number of advertisers decided that it was prudent to pause advertising (and probably at the same time shifting it to something else). Struggle to see what the problem is here?
Oh, and many moons ago, I worked for a company called Morse. They advertised on an F1 team for a while. Back of the field, didnt really do anything. Anyway, one big race (cant remember if it was the British GP or not) and got a bunch of big-wigs from the customer base to turn up. Nothing really happened except the Morse car crashed and best view that people had was of the back wing bouncing down the track in full view of the sponsors and media. Best coverage we ever had - promptly followed by a switch to a different sport. Not the same thing, but based on the feedback of the day, advertising spend was switched..... and there is another story after this one too....
If your profiled ad's cant be targeted to the specific group that your campaign is focused on, then it no longer becomes worthwhile. There will always be a risk that your ad gets served up with some hateful content, but the major platforms have done a huge amount in the last few years to eliminate this as much as possible. There will still be the examples that we see in the meme's, but the vast majority are extremely careful where they place ad's.
Ok, so given that the CEO of Twitter commented some pretty stupid stuff (and its far from the first time he's done this), it seems fair that the advertisers would consider a pause in their spend. Does it make sense for them to be associated with this? Is the risk of the ad appearing next to hate content something that they cannot offset? Some brands, and I would include Apple as a very good example, take their public image EXTREMELY serious. Its a very carefully crafted story. Seems fair that they pause spending.
But advertising dollars switch. Its all part of a wider campaign. Is Twitter essential to these businesses? Nah, they just switch the spend to something else. Maybe they do a few more video ad's on Facebook or something. In fact, I understand that Apple has a very effective agency that does a lot of this for them. No doubt that when the outcry stops, the dollars will start rolling in again though - its the advertising game and it can be extremely fickle.
I do struggle when people try to associate advertising spend with freedom of speech (though not directly here). Freedom of speech, here in the US anyway, is based on the right to say what you want without the fear of retribution by THE GOVERNMENT. It has no provisions for a private business. And what happens if these loonies get their way? Advertisers are forced to spend money on some platforms because of "reasons"? Does that mean we can force Microsoft to start advertising on 4Chan? Or maybe ensure that Apple ad's get served up on Twitter next to anti-semitic hateful content? As far as I see it, a lobbying organization drew attention to a situation and made it public. A number of advertisers decided that it was prudent to pause advertising (and probably at the same time shifting it to something else). Struggle to see what the problem is here?
Oh, and many moons ago, I worked for a company called Morse. They advertised on an F1 team for a while. Back of the field, didnt really do anything. Anyway, one big race (cant remember if it was the British GP or not) and got a bunch of big-wigs from the customer base to turn up. Nothing really happened except the Morse car crashed and best view that people had was of the back wing bouncing down the track in full view of the sponsors and media. Best coverage we ever had - promptly followed by a switch to a different sport. Not the same thing, but based on the feedback of the day, advertising spend was switched..... and there is another story after this one too....
Byker28i said:
You were fully in this morning accusing people of fraud until challenged wen you walked back your comments, then accused others of being gullible.
Musk can't accept that he's responsible for losing advertisers, has been multiple times since he took over twitter
I am still fully of the belief that MM have manipulated the data and user experience to throw a narrative against the platform and Musk. Because that's what they do as a group. This is the same group that pushed and amplified the Russia Collusion hoax in the media. The same group that suppressed the Hunter laptop story. The same group that smeared Rumble in an attempt to drive advertisers away. The same group that uploaded deep fake videos of Tucker Carlson on to twitter. Musk can't accept that he's responsible for losing advertisers, has been multiple times since he took over twitter
Edited by RichTT on Tuesday 21st November 05:08
Byker28i said:
You've posted a report on trumps first year, rather than look at the full term. There were 87 people killed by far-right terrorists over the first three trump years – 145 if we include the 58 killed in the October 2017 shooting rampage in Las Vegas
145 deaths over 4 years, a relative handful of incidents, mostly lone wolf operatives, in a country that sees the overwhelming majority of gun violence at the hands of almost every group other than white Americans is an incredibly biased and non-factual viewpoint. The idea that they are the greatest threat to America is laughable when the violent crime and gun crime statistics for mostly Democrat run urban cities far exceeds any sort of violent actions in mostly rural, Republican regions.Yes, must be all those whitey's.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7226a9.ht...
https://econofact.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/H...
You've also completely glossed over the conclusions of most of the 'far-right' terrorism research paper that I provided.
"We must not lose sight that only a relatively small portion of extreme-rightists ever turn to violence."
" [sic] it is not only perceived threats to a salient group identity that leads to extreme violence, but defensive violence is more likely when an offender’s personal identity is strongly fused with group identity. "
"Identity fusion theory could help to explain why relatively few extreme-rightists elevate to the level of commitment required to perpetrate violence, and why some offenders are triggered to commit violence by both personal and social attacks"
So after Trump was elected, how was the news cycle? Oh, it was overwhelmingly negative from every main stream publication. Combine that with years of anti-white/christian/hetero family values media campaigns, the already biased press swinging for Trump it is no wonder that there was a rise in this sentiment. And if you can't see the inherent bias in the main stream media you must be blind. Did they feel emboldened? No, quite the opposite, they felt that the news cycle was attacking 'their guy' (which it was), their values (and have for a long time), and they were fully up for defending him.
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald...
Twitter CEO was subpoenaed by Congress last thursday as well
but seems they are still refusing to respond, especially Musk who was subpoenaed previously
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-relea...
but seems they are still refusing to respond, especially Musk who was subpoenaed previously
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-relea...
Edited by Byker28i on Tuesday 21st November 06:39
Musk tweeting that Texas AG Paxton will take up his fight against Media Matters
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/20/texas-ken-...
I guess he hopes that will distract from his own fraud trial?
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/30/ken-paxton...
Filing is here
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscour...
Edit:
Paxtons press release
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/20/texas-ken-...
I guess he hopes that will distract from his own fraud trial?
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/30/ken-paxton...
Filing is here
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscour...
Edit:
Paxtons press release
Edited by Byker28i on Tuesday 21st November 07:03
RichTT loves knowing who funds who.
AG Paxton is funded by Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks
Defend Texas Liberty is funded by Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks, two oil billionaires who have spent +$100 million to push their ultraconservative views. Ken Paxton has received more money from them than any other donor.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/24/ken-paxton...
Dunn works closely with Brad Parscale (trump campaign) and recently invested $5million in AIAdvertising
Wilks funded far right PragerU who produce the controversial right-wing propaganda videos approved for FL schools by DeSantis
Note also that MM is registered in DC, not texas
AG Paxton is funded by Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks
Defend Texas Liberty is funded by Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks, two oil billionaires who have spent +$100 million to push their ultraconservative views. Ken Paxton has received more money from them than any other donor.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/24/ken-paxton...
Dunn works closely with Brad Parscale (trump campaign) and recently invested $5million in AIAdvertising
Wilks funded far right PragerU who produce the controversial right-wing propaganda videos approved for FL schools by DeSantis
Note also that MM is registered in DC, not texas
Must be some crazy levels of manipulation going on here
https://x.com/ESGhound/status/1726790599238373759
Whole bunch of examples there of how the platform has to be extensively manipulated to see this stuff. Because it can't possibly have any other explanation right?!
https://x.com/ESGhound/status/1726790599238373759
Whole bunch of examples there of how the platform has to be extensively manipulated to see this stuff. Because it can't possibly have any other explanation right?!
Byker28i said:
....
Paxtons press release
....
For me, this press release reveals part of what is wrong with the political system in the US.Paxtons press release
....
For an Attorney General to make a press release, announcing an investigation into an organisation (Media Matters) but then refer to them as an "Radical anti-free speech organisation .....who would like nothing more than to limit freedom...." he is basically declaring them guilty before he has looked at all the facts.
This is part of the weaponisation of the justice system, and I can't see that it ends well for either Democrats or Republicans.
Byker28i said:
RichTT loves knowing who funds who.
AG Paxton is funded by Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks
Defend Texas Liberty is funded by Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks, two oil billionaires who have spent +$100 million to push their ultraconservative views. Ken Paxton has received more money from them than any other donor.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/24/ken-paxton...
Dunn works closely with Brad Parscale (trump campaign) and recently invested $5million in AIAdvertising
Wilks funded far right PragerU who produce the controversial right-wing propaganda videos approved for FL schools by DeSantis
Note also that MM is registered in DC, not texas
I would love for you to define controversial right-wing or ultraconservative. AG Paxton is funded by Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks
Defend Texas Liberty is funded by Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks, two oil billionaires who have spent +$100 million to push their ultraconservative views. Ken Paxton has received more money from them than any other donor.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/24/ken-paxton...
Dunn works closely with Brad Parscale (trump campaign) and recently invested $5million in AIAdvertising
Wilks funded far right PragerU who produce the controversial right-wing propaganda videos approved for FL schools by DeSantis
Note also that MM is registered in DC, not texas
Plenty of Democrat / Left-wing money flowing into just MM.
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/media-ma...
dobbo_ said:
Must be some crazy levels of manipulation going on here
https://x.com/ESGhound/status/1726790599238373759
Whole bunch of examples there of how the platform has to be extensively manipulated to see this stuff. Because it can't possibly have any other explanation right?!
Yup, people are starting to post many examples, such ashttps://x.com/ESGhound/status/1726790599238373759
Whole bunch of examples there of how the platform has to be extensively manipulated to see this stuff. Because it can't possibly have any other explanation right?!
EddieSteadyGo said:
Byker28i said:
....
Paxtons press release
....
For me, this press release reveals part of what is wrong with the political system in the US.Paxtons press release
....
For an Attorney General to make a press release, announcing an investigation into an organisation (Media Matters) but then refer to them as an "Radical anti-free speech organisation .....who would like nothing more than to limit freedom...." he is basically declaring them guilty before he has looked at all the facts.
This is part of the weaponisation of the justice system, and I can't see that it ends well for either Democrats or Republicans.
"We are examining the issue closely to ensure that the public has not been deceived by the schemes of radical left-wing organizations who would like nothing more than to limit freedom by reducing participation in the public square,"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-attorney-ge...
RichTT said:
I am still fully of the belief that MM have manipulated the data and user experience to throw a narrative against the platform and Musk. Because that's what they do as a group. This is the same group that pushed and amplified the Russia Collusion hoax in the media. The same group that suppressed the Hunter laptop story. The same group that smeared Rumble in an attempt to drive advertisers away. The same group that uploaded deep fake videos of Tucker Carlson on to twitter.
Its a little disingenuous to think that MM have such a huge amount of power and that they can just lie and make giant corporations bend to their wills. Most, if not all, of the advertisers who were "frightened away" by MM will be using a dedicated media agency, probably a specialist in online ads. Chances are that some of them even share the same outside organization. But to suggest that, assuming you are correct, some coordinated lobbying by MM managed to have such a dramatic effect - its disproportionately suggesting that MM can just click their fingers and things happen. Online ad companies, as well as major corporations are constantly lobbied. Some big groups, some small, some political. I am sure that the potential for their brands to be seen next to hate speech was the final straw for them. I doubt it was the single excuse. To suggest that a group, such as MM, can just manipulate a few images and suddenly a whole bunch of companies pull their advertising is missing the wider picture. Twitter is suffering badly, and here is an alternative view also - Musk admitted that ad revenue is down 50%. Is this a seller or buyer market? Could advertisers be looking for an excuse to jump? Could they hold situations like this as a negotiating chip for ad rates?
If Twitter is so good, effective and with an amazing backend ad system, why are advertisers paying less and less for impressions? Why do so many jump when lobbied? I believe that there is a very simple set of reasons for this, not that there is some sort of leftist cabal of a few that are trying to destroy Twitter.
Byker28i said:
CEO response is interesting. She's not saying the racist/white supremacist stuff doesn't appear, just echoing musks claim of manipulation
If they can identify this manipulation so easily, why can't they prevent it?"Yes our algorithm served up Nazi posts alongside advertisers, but we have no control over that".
Durzel said:
Byker28i said:
CEO response is interesting. She's not saying the racist/white supremacist stuff doesn't appear, just echoing musks claim of manipulation
If they can identify this manipulation so easily, why can't they prevent it?"Yes our algorithm served up Nazi posts alongside advertisers, but we have no control over that".
Wait wait wait
Doesn't matter RichTT will not address the substance of the issue but we can look forward to a f
k ton more graphs and charts whilst avoiding the absolutey unavoidable truth
And I say that as someone who has been directly accused of being gullible.
So many reasons why lord God Elon will not pursue his lawsuit. So many painfully obvious reasons. Even for gullible folk like me.
Doesn't matter RichTT will not address the substance of the issue but we can look forward to a f
k ton more graphs and charts whilst avoiding the absolutey unavoidable truth And I say that as someone who has been directly accused of being gullible.
So many reasons why lord God Elon will not pursue his lawsuit. So many painfully obvious reasons. Even for gullible folk like me.
dobbo_ said:
So many reasons why lord God Elon will not pursue his lawsuit. So many painfully obvious reasons. Even for gullible folk like me.
Well he's filled it!https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-media-matters...
However, there is virtually no chance of it ever going anywhere. He threatened the ADL and that never went anywhere. Now he's threatening MM and actually seems to be trying to do something. However, its a distraction at best, fanboy material at worst. All of Musk's businesses are wrapped up in constant legal battles and yet he has to launch things like this?
How about paying those employees that you didnt pay out on the severance package that you said you would? Or the multiple instances of not sticking to local laws for other employees let go? Or maybe how about paying for the stuff that you are currently using, like office space and data center costs? Nah, lets all get distracted with the Electric Jesus and his so called 'freedom of speech' call.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff