This is an old tactic to pressure social media companies to change their policies. They've done this repeatedly to Youtube, as well. I believe, The New York Pravda and Bezos Gazette made several attempts resulting in several 'Adpocalypses'. I've always suspected that these attempts were coordinated with Youtube insiders to force an internal policy change, because the policy changes 'inexplicably' ended up favoring a certain political outlook. Surprise!
I remember it happening with Fox News over a decade ago. This kind of threat to advertisers should be illegal. It's not a "I'm just not gonna buy your products!" boycott. It's a mafia shakedown.
A hit in their ad revenue hits their bottom line. In order to effectuate a change, that damages their bottom line, they'll have to manufacture a pretext. That's where the insiders come into play. Not everyone might be on board with accepting a reduction in ad revenue in order to implement some socio-political agenda, which is why a pretext is manufactured.
"Hey Corporations, I am deeply offended that your brand is showing next to the content of an account I chose to follow to be offended by its content and insinuate you specifically are guilty by this association I fabricated to manipulate you. Defund Twitter or you are a Nazi, and Nazis don't get to have a buisness, or eat, or remain unpunched.
If advertising worked, this would hurt the advertisers because less people would find out about their products or be bamboozled into buying shit they don't need. The advertisers mostly do this as a means to support fellow state actors through funds with minimal oversight.
Correct. Not one of these companies throwing a tantrum over this is removing their advertising from TikTok, a platform that's been promoting far worse than anything they are kvetching over on X.
I want to support him, but I don't want to give my phone number. It's probably irrelevant but I dunno.
What I mean is I don't want some bad actor at Twitter to be able to link my phone number.
I don't even have a phone number. The only people that call me through the phone system are scammers. I'm almost never away from wifi and many apps apps let me do voice calls.
I had it for one month, but then he hired that WEF toadie Linda Yaccarino. Maybe I'll get it again when she moves on. Right now it just feels like controlled opposition or managed pressure release valve.
The entire "your ads are being shown next to bad stuff!!!!" angle is so stupid. No one cares what the ads are next to. No one is stupid enough to think that an ad showing up means that company endorses the page. Someday an advertiser is going to figure this out and put their ads on porn and make bank.
This is an old tactic to pressure social media companies to change their policies. They've done this repeatedly to Youtube, as well. I believe, The New York Pravda and Bezos Gazette made several attempts resulting in several 'Adpocalypses'. I've always suspected that these attempts were coordinated with Youtube insiders to force an internal policy change, because the policy changes 'inexplicably' ended up favoring a certain political outlook. Surprise!
I remember it happening with Fox News over a decade ago. This kind of threat to advertisers should be illegal. It's not a "I'm just not gonna buy your products!" boycott. It's a mafia shakedown.
Force? It's not like those big techs aren't filled with leftists from the very top
A hit in their ad revenue hits their bottom line. In order to effectuate a change, that damages their bottom line, they'll have to manufacture a pretext. That's where the insiders come into play. Not everyone might be on board with accepting a reduction in ad revenue in order to implement some socio-political agenda, which is why a pretext is manufactured.
Presstitutes are evil.
Advertising is bullshit anyway.
If advertising worked, this would hurt the advertisers because less people would find out about their products or be bamboozled into buying shit they don't need. The advertisers mostly do this as a means to support fellow state actors through funds with minimal oversight.
Correct. Not one of these companies throwing a tantrum over this is removing their advertising from TikTok, a platform that's been promoting far worse than anything they are kvetching over on X.
Pretty effective 1 pager from Musk, showing the sheer scale of faggotry Media Matters exemplifies with their tactics.
Given his stand for free speech, we really should be organizing to buy Twitter premium en masse.
I want to support him, but I don't want to give my phone number. It's probably irrelevant but I dunno. What I mean is I don't want some bad actor at Twitter to be able to link my phone number.
I don't even have a phone number. The only people that call me through the phone system are scammers. I'm almost never away from wifi and many apps apps let me do voice calls.
Totally understand, but you have to take a stand at some point. This is it imo.
Maybe, but why do they even need my phone number?
Why doesn't Elon just remove that requirement?
My guess is so he can start doing payment processing. Trust him more with the job and info than the credit card companies.
He is taking a stand. No phone number or no $.
More like taking a sit on the sidelines.
I had it for one month, but then he hired that WEF toadie Linda Yaccarino. Maybe I'll get it again when she moves on. Right now it just feels like controlled opposition or managed pressure release valve.
The entire "your ads are being shown next to bad stuff!!!!" angle is so stupid. No one cares what the ads are next to. No one is stupid enough to think that an ad showing up means that company endorses the page. Someday an advertiser is going to figure this out and put their ads on porn and make bank.
Did they try to make it so some random 4Chan post was popping up next to a pepsi ad or something?
Get wrecked, faggots.