This whole thing is so incredibly overblown. Advertisers can flee (although the article only says X is on pace to lose about 75 million) but unless the users do, it's meaningless and they'll come back.
Media Matters is a professional political psychological manipulation outfit. Musk's tweets were dumb and offensive, but Media Matters is milking this for every penny it's worth and trying to make it seem much larger than it is. (as they are incentivized to do).
Leaving gives advertisers an opportunity to measure the ROI of their ad spend to a degree they can't usually acheive. Rolling out a campaign is usually speculative and many were initiated when Twitter was exponentially growing, making quantitative assessment hard. Twitter (and the market) is no longer in that state.
Whether they return probably has more to do with what they discover in this de facto A:B test than whether users stay or leave.
And if they don't return, ad pricing will plummet and draw in more cheap and scam/fringe-market ads, changing the feel of the site for users.
Musk is suing Media Matters not just because of his personal ego or sense of principle, but because the advertiser bleed it triggered could become a really bad thing for his darling.
Counter: Pornhub has lots of users, but no big brands. Is X at that state? No, but the point is that brand safety is important, advertisers pay attention to it, and it impacts the publishers bottom line.
What's weird about not wanting to support someone using money that helps promote something you are against?
I've got to admit, I think it's weird that you'd be willing to support things you disagree with.
Edit: Further, my comment was commenting on the reference to brand safety. It's a personal anecdote, but it's perfectly fine in conversation.
So, what was weird about an on-topic comment about not wanting to support a message I disagree with nor do business with those who are fine with supporting that message?
My gripes about moral purchasing aside. It’s one thing to disagree with someone or not purchase their products. It’s another thing to call someone a hate monger for vague reasons. And I support free speech and discussion because I’m an American. I don’t know where you’re from but that’s how America works.
I guess one has to buy into the concept that targeted advertising works to actually think that someone's ad appearing next to questionable content was there because the company sought out that content to appear next to. Of course, reality shows that targeted advertising doesn't work like that, and it's pretty much a random "who has the ad budget remaining to fund an ad display for this page load" which means it'll always be a major company with deep pockets for advertising
You are mixing up two events. MM reported on ads next to neo-nazi content AND Musk tweeted something anti-semitic. MM didn't make Musk do that nor was it even called out in their post because it happened before he said it.
Doubtless each of these companies have number-crunchers in back rooms trying to estimate the costs of tarnishing their brand if they continue to advertise on X. These sort of allegations can stick - Disney won't want to be remembered as the company that supported anti-Semitism. If X's reputation continues to go down, so will its advertisers.
Plus not all users are alike. I've never been in a backroom, but I'm guessing that they are more concerned with the users with more spending capital.
They cancelled "All-American Muslim" because they couldn't get advertisers even though it was averaging 1 million viewers per show which would made it one of the most popular show on TLC.
> They cancelled "All-American Muslim" because they couldn't get advertisers even though it was averaging 1 million viewers per show which would made it one of the most popular show on TLC.
To add context, this was after a few large companies canceled their ads for that show after push back from a very small number of evangelical christians:
I imagine TV advertisements are an entirely different beast. I'd suppose it's much more difficult to fill TV airtime because the barrier to creating a good TV advertisement is so high. And the expected revenue was probably pre-priced in, and also there's very limited airtime so why run something that isn't performing as well as something else could?
Whereas, Twitter is infinite, and theoretical advertising is unlimited. Additionally, the barrier to a Twitter ad is much less. Just speculating, though.
Reactionary talk radio has tons of listeners, but few if any mainstream advertisers. It's all pointers to other demagogues, dubious legal services, prepper supplies, and overpriced gimmicks where the value add is the political identity marketing itself. I don't see why Twitter would end up any different.
Losing 75 million _through the end of the year_, over something which happened in mid November, is non-trivial. Like, this is not the total bill for Musk spouting his mouth off forever and ever.
I would point out that advertising $$$s is basically zero sum.
I agree with the premise that if $75m is removed from the supply prices will go down and then new $$$s will come into the platform, so it's not a 1:1 drop in revenue, but you probably aren't going to see $75m of new money enter the market.
Of course Tesla or SpaceX could decide they want to start running ads?
I see almost 0 hate or negative messages on X. I must be doing something wrong/right or following different groups. I'd like to understand why some people aren't seeing it and if groups/regions are being targeted with different content.
Are you familiar with the recent activities of the owner, chairman, and CTO of X? People may object to X without having any concerns about the content of X.
“Okay. Jewish [communities] have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them,” the post read.
“I’m deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don’t exactly like them too much,” the user continued, adding, “You want truth said to your face, there it is.”
I'm aware that many people would not classify this as anti-Semantic, but many others do. Those that do are not necessarily concerned about the content of X.
Upstream a poster noted that they never saw anti-Semantic content in their feed. The whole of my point is that many people who object to X are not concerned about its content.
I ask people “what’s so deplorable about Musk?” and their complaints are always vague. He’s not in lockstep with MSNBC so he’s a nazi or something? idk makes no sense to me.
There's nothing vague about it. E.g. just to use the obvious example these stories are about: He lauded, without adding qualifications, a comment that arguably was over-broad and promoted hatred based on race/religion. Again, arguably; but also obviously - as in, that interpretation is an obvious potential one, even if you don't agree with it. And yet, knowing that, he still chose his action. He could have expressed a more reasonable opinion in any of various different ways, or in response to any of the various more reasonable criticisms of e.g. the ADL - but he explicitly chose not to.
So, you may agree or disagree with the position I'm describing as "arguable", but the position is not "vague", and it of course implies none of the hyperbole you've resorted to in painting your opponents.
- Mastodon has become a bit friendlier for normal people to use, but it still has a very strong tech-leaning userbase that is very protective of the "culture" they've built so far. In some spaces, it can be openly hostile to anyone hoping for an old Twitter-like culture.
- Threads has eased up on the burying controversial topics and threads thing. But it still has, overall, very low engagement and very poor discoverability. Plus, it forces you to attribute your Instagram account to your Threads account, which ruins anonymity for many normal users. A hallmark of what made Twitter attractive.
- I've never bothered with Bluesky so I have no clue how they're doing right now.
Ignoring TikTok, I think things like Discord and Whatsapp Groups/Channels are soaking up a lot of what's been falling off Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc
The pendulum seems to be swinging back from consolidated forums to fragmented ones, without much concern over whether the undelying platforms are still all being hosted by one entity or are technologically decentralized.
Mastodon is a different product than what I use Twitter for, but for some use cases and communities seems pretty great. Zero chance of replacing Twitter.
Threads is terrible. Not infeasible that it makes it eventually but it’s just so bad I can’t see how it’s a serious threat.
Bluesky feels very different, maybe like the early days of Twitter and seems to possibly be sanely architected as well as having decent “safety” tools. Seems to be growing. One to watch, and the most likely replacement candidate, but not there yet.
I also have one eye on Nostr and another on Discord, WhatsApp, and YouTube.
Most likely though, I think the new Twitter will be Twitter. It’s not going anywhere, that I can see.
I stopped using it as most of the community I was interested in did too and I didn't like tacitly supporting Musk and his fans. I tried all three of the above, they are all not good for different reasons. In the end the alternative was just nothing. It turns out that none of the above is totally viable. We don't actually need this type of thing in the end.
Bluesky’s trickle of invites has become a flood; I gave out 10 over the last two days, and now that I check, it has just given me another one. I’ve got to imagine they’re not too far from just opening the floodgates.
I don’t entirely buy the “mastodon is too complex for normal people” thing; I follow lots of normal people on Mastodon. It is not all nerds.
Twitter and it's alternatives are dead. The truth no one seems to get is that the demographic shift does not bode well for Twitter or any of it's alts. The only demo with any growth on these platforms is 55+, 35 and under are moving to other forms of social media.
I don’t know or care enough to question it. I am assuming them making false claims like that would open them up to some kind of lawsuits WRT advertisers or something?
If this holds true, it is a big win for interface over functionality and under-the-hood-technology.
Mastodon is based on a pretty good protocol (ActivityPub) and has many instances. But the usability is terrible. Bluesky on the other hand only has a single implementation and instance, and I find the protocol (The AT protocol) harder to grok. But the interface of the one instance is way better than any Mastodon instance I have seen.
My grandma is Jewish, I have Jewish friends. What’s convenient about antisemitism? Are you Jewish? What has Musk done or said that’s hateful towards Jewish people?
Some guy posted a common neo-nazi conspiracy theory about Jews. Elon replied in approval. Apparently you did now know this, yet you come here and post that we should not talk about it.
I think maybe you misread the statement. You asked people to stop bringing up antisemitism because you are exhausted, and I’m assuming that they meant to point out that changing topics simply to help you avoid exhaustion would be doing so for your personal convenience (not the “convenience” of antisemitism as a concept, whatever that means). There is not a valid interpretation of that post as “antisemitism is convenient” if you accurately read the words in order.
> Can you elaborate on the meaning of that question?
My question was rhetorical. The original poster was implying that I love antisemitism. That's ridiculous. If I have Jewish friends and family then nothing is coinvent about antisemitism.
> The original poster was implying that I love antisemitism.
Can you quote the part that implied that? I only saw a direct response to your personal feelings of exhaustion and your request that antisemitism be avoided being brought up in a venue wherein you might read it and become even more exhausted.
Also
> My question was rhetorical.
I’m confused. This question was both rhetorical and GP was avoiding answering it?
I am sorry, I must assume you are exhausted. I doubt you’ve convinced anybody to stop bringing up antisemitism in general for your specific benefit, but I’m no psychic. Perhaps after a good rest of your weary bones you might implore us in a better way
Incorrect. That's the way you've intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted what I said. I'm tired of people throwing harsh unfounded accusations at other people. I'm tired of ignorant self-righteousness. You're getting it twisted. Maybe sit this one out.
as asking the person to explain their reasoning in the statement that antisemitism is convenient. Obviously I’ve misunderstood and we both agree that they did not say that.
Can you elaborate on the meaning of that question?
I had cut my use of Twitter by probably >90% and uninstalled the app after they killed 3rd party clients, in a large part because that meant I was now seeing any ads at all.
I started paying for Premium+ and reinstalled the app once I realised it meant no ads, and am a regular user again now. I’d still rather be using Tweetbot but the “following” tab and ad-free is more than fine enough.
So really the ideal number of brands advertising on X is zero. I don’t care what big brands are doing, as long as they don’t do it anywhere near me.
If that means charging for a premium experience, or for businesses wanting to embed Tweets or analyse data, or whatever, instead of targeting innocent victims with advertising, great!
My complaint about X/Twitter remains that someone/some company/some government can still control who can post and what they can post. That control needs to be designed out entirely and replaced with safety tools that reduce the reach of objectionable content and allow people to collaborate over more restrictive blocklists to suit their sensibilities, without creating any point of control.
Media Matters is a professional political psychological manipulation outfit. Musk's tweets were dumb and offensive, but Media Matters is milking this for every penny it's worth and trying to make it seem much larger than it is. (as they are incentivized to do).