Twitter tells advertisers to go fsck themselves, now sues them for fscking the fsck off Twitter today sued the World Federation of Advertisers, whose members are said to control about 90 percent of global marketing spend, for cutting back their ads on the social network – or in most cases pulling them entirely. The complaint, filed in a federal district court in northern Texas, alleges [PDF] that the federation …
Musk seems to think that no matter what he says must be so (and usually means he expects money.) All the signs point to serious psychological problems, mostly caused by a grotesquely over-inflated ego that leads him to believe such tripe.
The funniest bit is "without the trade body explicitly telling them to." A bit like him goading the far right extremists rioting in the UK "without...explicitly telling them to.". If he thinks he has a case, then using the same logic, gov.uk has a case to force Twitter to block his account in the UK or just block Twitter in the UK if he refuses :-)
Politicians next? Any dictator would "sue" his electorate to death for voting somebody else.
Many super-rich lost their mind. Or plain mad people got to power. Then there are drugs, of course. But power corrupts.
The institute of reputation makes meritocracy possible. Responsibility? - Have not heard of that.
Then there are drugs, of course. But power corrupts.
Power may corrupt but it needs massive use of drugs to think you can tell your customers to fuck off and then sue them when they do. If there's any verdict in this case other than "fuck off Musk, you great weirdo" then the US legal system has been totally captured by business.
stop and shop is going to sue me because i switched to star market. next Starbucks going to sue me cause is switched to dunkins. What did he expect when he said "F***" you? imagine that these companies that no longer advertise on xitter can make up their own minds where they want to spend money. Not sure you can force someone to spend money to advertise in a particular venue. Might violate first amendment rights which musk so fervently supports. Companies might be getting a better return by advertising on npr.
"Are you talking about the guy that’s taking us to Mars?
This year according to his earlier promises, now 2029. Time to start using "vapourware" again."
You'd think they'd be working on life support and in-situ fuel production equipment by now......
Instead, they are finding out that their rocket may only be enough to lift 1/3 of the payload initially promised, probably less. The last flight saw the booster "land" in the ocean with nearly empty tanks after lifting an empty shell.
"You'd think they'd be working on life support and in-situ fuel production equipment by now......"
Maybe they are. As a non-public company, they only have to tell us what they want us to know, and Musk us generally kept well away from the real R&D :-)
"Instead, they are finding out that their rocket may only be enough to lift 1/3 of the payload initially promised, probably less. The last flight saw the booster "land" in the ocean with nearly empty tanks after lifting an empty shell."
That's normal. You REALLY don't want to be attempting a landing, even a virtual one, with tanks containing more than the bare minimum of left-over fuel, or liftin more fuel than you need, wasting it.
"You REALLY don't want to be attempting a landing, even a virtual one, with tanks containing more than the bare minimum of left-over fuel, or liftin more fuel than you need, wasting it."
Initially, the tank was full and they launched an empty craft so there should have been propellants left. You also want to have some left to make sure you don't run out and crash or the little that's left gets sloshing about uncovering a fuel port, which sucks in an air bubble blowing up a pump/engine and you crash. Wasting a bit of CH4 and LoX is trivial money.
"Please corporate-friendly Texas judge, force these other companies to buy things from us!"
Yes I know in this case both sides would be considered corporate but one side is advocating for more corporate power and suppression of others' freedom, while the other side is exercising their actual free speech rights and their right to not be bullied.
Wait a moment, was this not the country of "letting the market decide"?
I knew Musk was getting more and more delusional (seems to be a common problem, his mate Trump left the rails years ago), but suing people for having the temerity of spending their advertising dollars on a less idiotic audience means the man ought to be shipped to Mars as soon as a rocket is available because he's clearly gone extraterrestrial. Or nuts, take your pick.
It's a shame it takes so much effort to declare someone a vexations litigant, because this stunt deserves it.
Moron.
Musk is Trump's mate but Trump isn't Musk's mate. From a post by Trump on Truth Social in 2022:
When Elon Musk came to the White House asking me for help on all of his many subsidized projects, whether it’s electric cars that don’t drive long enough, driverless cars that crash, or rocketships to nowhere, without which subsidies he’d be worthless, and telling me how he was a big Trump fan and Republican, I could have said, ‘drop to your knees and beg,’ and he would have done it,
Trump hits back at Elon Musk, says he could have made him ‘drop to his knees and beg’
Now Musk is simping for Trump again while stirring up far right riots in the UK and shitposting about his children.
I did, but to be fair I was focusing on the reasons he's a shameless, self-serving hypocrite when it comes to his alleged support of free speech and free markets in cases like this where it doesn't suit him.
But yeah, the Nazi-sympathiser comment was a nod to all that in general- it'd have been much longer if it was a full evisceration of Musk and everything that was wrong with him as an excuse for a human being.
Which reminds me that we can point out that Musk is a pedo.
An accusation we can apparently make without it being defamatory because Musk himself fought and won a court case on that basis and he certainly meets his own definition of being a "creepy guy".
(And yes, that whole case was when it became clear *just* what a piece of shit Musk really was).
Also what an attention whore he is (and yes, I'm sad that I'm here commenting on it!). It was well publicised at the time that the caves were very narrow and the divers in SCUBA gear could only just get through, so his public offers of a submersible were clear attention seeking.
@EdwardGLuce: “Can't say this enough; Elon Musk's menace to democracy is intolerable. He's using the largest & most influential platform in the democratic world to stoke racial conflict and civil breakdown - in his own posts & what X promotes. Democracies can no longer ignore this.”
-------
Get with the Blob, Elon and all your legal and financial woes will evaporate.
Never having used Twitter, given musk controls it and Tesla, are there Tesla ads shown around "objectional" content on Twitter? I think I saw musk say Tesla would spend a bunch on ads there but haven't heard of incidents with that brand unlike other brands.
More curious if he would even care whether or not Tesla's ads show up alongside such content.
Following the successful launch of the Cybertruck, Tesla's looking a bit barren for new models. The S is still a design concept that dates back to 2009, even the 3 is getting on, having been unveiled in 2016. So bringing Musk's persona and politics and Tesla together, perhaps they need a convertible he can stand up in the back of?
Original AC here:
Yes it was a reference to the Austrian who wasn't an archduke.
Although a quick trawl of web images from history shows that I'm wrong, the Muskite in question almost always stood up in the front of convertibles. Pictures suggest this was simply because when standing up in a moving car it is necessary to hold on to the top of the windscreen.
Following the successful launch of the Cybertruck
For small values of "successful".
For this guy's review of the Cybertruck, the thin-skinned Nazi manchild banned his account on Twitter.
For this guy's review of the Cybertruck, the thin-skinned Nazi manchild banned his account on Twitter.
Ah Elon. Maximal free speech, unless you say anything he doesn't like!
I'd love to see someone in congress propose a law that owners/major shareholders of social media companies aren't allowed to silence posts critical of them. Obviously it would never go anywhere with the republican house protecting Trump's butt boy. But it would be fun to see it proposed just to watch him lose his shit, and try to explain how his position jives with his claimed belief in "maximal free speech"!
For bonus points (extra shit flinging by the man child) AOC should be the one to propose it.
>> "We tried being nice for two years and got nothing but empty words," X CEO Elon Musk added on Tuesday. "Now, it is war."
I don't want my brand being associated with war. You have quite literally pushed me away. That is only the latest egregious example, there are plenty of others.
Advertisers (customers) only spend out when they think they might see a return on their investment. X has a certain mindset and approach that does not suit everyone. Even though journos still seem enamoured of the platform, that seems to be inertia. If I was deploying serious advertising cash, X would not be top of my list unless I really wanted to look edgy to the point of nigh on criminality.
And it could very well approach criminality in some cases (at least being a civil legal issue). The people running those companies have a legal duty to their shareholders to spend the money wisely and to make the company look good and be successful, which means NOT being associated with horrible things like Nazis and racism anti-trans stuff. If they continue advertising in places that make them associated with that stuff, their shareholders can take action.
You'd think so, but have you met many social media marketing planners? They'll fall for any garbage about "impressions" and "reach", and they can't tell whether those numbers are ready-to-buy customers, bots, placement fraud, or MAGA loonies whose meagre budget will be spent on an assault rifle, a bump stock, and more ammo. And quite honestly I don't think the marketing planners care.
The purpose of social media advertising these days is primarily to spend about a quarter of a trillion dollars each year, and for that to generate reams and reams of charts and metrics that look fancy and proclaim success, yet have no relationship to the sales and profitability of the companies paying for it.
"there are no laws that say they have to advertise next to nazi incels."
Nazi this, Nazi that just skews a proper discussion.
If your company makes dresses for young girls, do you want your ads placed next to comment strings advocating reducing age-of-consent laws down to 12? The list of bad associations is endless and many of them can be with things that are considered very liberal or on-the-edge where most advertisers don't want to be associated with anything too far from center. It can even be the odd F-bomb in a post with an ad just to the right of the post that might read "F-- Coca Cola" due to word wrap. This is why advertisers want moderation that filters certain words.
Melon has essentially proclaimed free speech for me but no for thee. A prime example of the tool not getting it. What he really wants is his own personal echo chamber to bounce his idiot ideals around in.
But this is also exactly what Garm seems to demand, and it's not their platform. Should Garm have the power to shape their own echo chambers on other company's properties, or is this a violation of anti-trust law? Which is also an interesting question to answer given the number of competing 'misinformation' providers, all angling for a slice of the pie as governments introduce assorted 'Online Safety' or censorship legislation.
Jellied Eel: "But this is also exactly what Garm seems to demand, and it's not their platform. Should Garm have the power to shape their own echo chambers on other company's properties, or is this a violation of anti-trust law? "
You've not done the slightest bit of basic research or critical thinking here, have you?
GARM is not a lobbying group, a censor, imposes no rules on its participants, is not political, it makes no demands, it does not recommend boycotts or coordinated action, it is simply a platform to enable advertising buyers to identify what co-displayed content is appropriate to their individual brand.
As for "echo chambers" that's exactly what Xitter now is, I'm sure you'll find like minded Muskites who'll welcome you in.
You've not done the slightest bit of basic research or critical thinking here, have you?GARM is not a lobbying group, a censor, imposes no rules on its participants, is not political..
Errm.. Allow me to provide you with a bit of a clue-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Federation_of_Advertisers#Global_Alliance_for_Responsible_Media
In 2019, WFA formed the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), a global cross-industry alliance which aims to improve digital safety and eliminate harmful online content. GARM is made up of advertisers, agencies, media companies, platforms and industry organisations and is part of the World Economic Forum's Platform for Shaping the Future of Media, Entertainment and Culture. The alliance has introduced guidelines concerning misinformation and new standards on ad placements.
So perhaps a bit of semantics, they're not rules, just 'guidelines'..
As for "echo chambers" that's exactly what Xitter now is, I'm sure you'll find like minded Muskites who'll welcome you in.
Nope. It's simply allowing more echoes to slip past the old Twitter censors. But something that's always puzzled me is both Twitter and X make it easy to block someone you find objectionable. So why the loony lefties want NGOs to do this for them. But I've never used Twitter, and have no intention of using X.
"So perhaps a bit of semantics, they're not rules, just 'guidelines'.."
Many business groups spend most of their efforts formulating guidelines and best-practices to help their members. I don't see an anti-trust situation unless the members are required to follow the edicts of the group.
It's not just whether to spend money advertising on Social Media, but which venues have the best (or any) ROI. If X's content is controversial and ads can be placed next to content an advertiser doesn't want to be associated with, that's a problem. It might also be down to price as well. A business group might spend the time to research all of this and report its findings. Sorry, Elon, that's they way the world works and telling people to GFY usually creates a lot of tension with them. When he did that, he looked like he'd been on a pretty good bender the night before and perhaps should have apologized and blamed a hangover on his mood. To double down and remain antagonistic towards your customers won't end well. What's the interest cost for the loans? A billion a year?
"Should Garm have the power to shape their own echo chambers on other company's properties, or is this a violation of anti-trust law? "
Business groups often are there to help their members do better. They don't have the power to force companies to follow a certain agenda or only do business with certain entities like a Fosterite would be required. If Elon wants to get the approval of these business groups, he needs to work with them. Oh yeah, all those people within the company that would have addressed all of that have been sacked although it seems like the attorney's haven't. I guess he needs to get Linda to do that since there isn't much said about what she does at the company.
If Elon wants to get the approval of these business groups, he needs to work with them.
If you read the claim, X apparently had been trying to do this, but got nowhere and reached for the sueball. Plus the recent Google anti-trust announcement might be making him think there's an increasing perception that big business is increasingly throwing it's weight around too much and has too much power.
Oh yeah, all those people within the company that would have addressed all of that have been sacked although it seems like the attorney's haven't. I guess he needs to get Linda to do that since there isn't much said about what she does at the company.
Not all, just a reduction in the number of censors that seems to have made the left's heads explode. I think there needs to be more grown-up conversations between advertisers and social media companies like X, Facebook, YT etc to find better ways to match content to audiences. Especially when despite the supposed analytic power of the techbros, the vast majority of ads I see are totally irrelevant and thus ad spend is wasted. Plus the general quantity and irrelevance of ads leading to reports that around 50% of the US market now use ad blockers.
"If you read the claim, X apparently had been trying to do this, but got nowhere and reached for the sueball."
Given Elon's public statements, I have a very hard time believing he even spent 5 minutes on the issues before he needed to take another Xitt. Hauling out the lawyers isn't going to solve any problems, it will exacerbate them. Sue your customers and the likelihood they'll ever come back is zero. The ad money would be better spent handing out free samples and coupons.
So, everything about the ad industry is great, apart from the bit that doesn't want to be associated with racist hate which isn't?
It's an interesting take. If they win, presumably I can then sue Tesla for not advertising on a website I might decide to set up, because not paying me money to run ads next to "Elon Musk is a drug addled fool" articles also cannot be allowed to continue.
-
A Musk-debunking playlist that doesn’t have any thunderf00t videos? You have achieved the unachievable!
For added (entertaining and numbers-based) childish whining, thunderf00t’s content features multiple examinations of Musk’s record on telling the truth and behaving rationally.
surely encompasses the choice not to speak.
The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution preserves the right to silence where self incrimination is involved - a right that the Emperor of Mongo seemingly wishes to forgo.
"... tried being nice for two years and got nothing but empty words," ... "Now, it is war." Huh? Nice? Empty words? Sounds like Space Karen has mistaken a mirror for a window. Too much Special-K?
"Woke mind virus" and this "failed to launch" hasn't got some nasty MAGA brain eating prion disease?
Unlike Theodore Rooseveldt, Musk et al. have but a small stick but constantly screech rather loudly about perceived infringements of their delusional "rights."
I imagine Teddy would have personally horsewhipped the whole sorry crew - his contemporary robber barons were the real deal and not our half arsed wannabes.
Tim Walz became viral because he called t-Rump and Vance 'Weird'. That earned him a vice-pres role.
I'd say Musk is weird.
First you make a point of telling advertisers, publicly, to F-off, and then you sue them when they do.
The reason they're leaving, is you Let that sink in. You brought your own brand of Right-Wing free speech to Twatter, and you publicly insulted the people who pay the bill$ ~ and now you're taking them to court and tossing Sue-balls because they're not advertising with you. How is that not "WEIRD"?
I blocked Musk shortly after the takeover as his unhinged ranting was being forced into my feed by whatever algorithm decided he was worth reading (assuming the algorithm is 'I own the platform, look at meeeee!').
With the trouble in the UK and Elon's talk of civil war, I have seen many posts over the last few days with some of the vilest racist language that the platform does nothing about. Add to this that almost all ads seem to be crap from drop shippers. Finally, the few times I do post on there, my posts are almost always insta-liked by scammers called <girlsname><stringofnumbers> who invariably have profiles with no posts or replies, but descriptions like 'hot girl looking for love'. Often many of these profiles even use the same picture.
So why would any reputable company want to advertise in this cesspit, especially after being told to fuck off?
"The problem with his “civil war” stuff is that he’s said it a LOT over the years about a whole range of subjects. It’s his twitter equivalent of “Full Self Driving by the end of this year”, i.e. if you believe it, you’re the mug."
There's a big difference between gullible mugs waiting for full driving and being disappointed and gullible mugs setting fire to your car and burning down your library.
I blocked Musk shortly after the takeover as his unhinged ranting was being forced into my feed by whatever algorithm decided he was worth reading (assuming the algorithm is 'I own the platform, look at meeeee!').
At least you have that option. Here, it's not possible to block anonymongs.
But this statement from the self-Garmer I find problematic-
Elon Musk makes no secret of his support for Donald Trump. Trump has repeatedly described climate change as a hoax
Therefore in the world according to Garm, advertisers should boycott X. Advertisers (and users in general) should be free to spend their money where they like. The Garm statement seems to suggest they should boycott X because their owner exercises protected free speech in supporting a particular political candidate. Then in a spot of guilt by association, because that political candidate doesn't blindly believe in Global Warming dogma.
I think this is wrong, in a general 'free speech' way. First Amendment stuff mostly protects against government supression, not censoring or attempting to shape the narrative on social media. Users should be free to debate Global Warming dogma on X, which they can now. In the dark days of Twitter, that could and did result in bans. Garm still seems to want to limit users free speech, and by doing so, harming X.
who would have guessed you would give us your bullshit.
And who would have guessed that an anonymong would respond with a content free ad hom? Or that you'd get 4 thumbs up for posting personal attacks on contributors..
just admit you love nazis and get over your self
Once upon a time there was just Godwins Law. Coming real soon now, the UK will have the Online Safety Act which includes provisions to make hate speech like yours punishable by large fines and possible imprisonment.. Until those provisions, I guess I'll just have to wonder what the lefties obsession with Nazis is..
Are you still trying to make fetch "anonymong" happen? It's not going to happen! :-)
Most likely because- while "mong" and other cheap developmental-disability-derived insults were probably the epitome of humour when you were at primary school in the 70s or whenever- people grow up and times move on.
Well, most of us do.
I clicked on your handle, and your endlessly divisive posts were really dispiriting.
Well, the odd thing about a civil society is it allows for debate and discussion, not just providing echo chambers.
I can remember when the Reg had proper moderation to keep the loons out.
I to remember the Moderatrix. Sadly since then, there seems to have been a large influx of anonymong trolls who just seem to attack registered users, and don't add anything constructive to the debate.
> I can remember when the Reg had proper moderation to keep the loons out.
The mods are still definitely active here- I've literally just noticed that one sub-thread in this very discussion was removed, i.e. the root comment and all direct or indirect replies to it. (I should be clear that- ironically- in that case the *root* comment wasn't Jellied's own).
Bear in mind that there isn't any sign of that removal within the thread, and- AFAICT- you can't see any evidence of moderator-removed comments in other users' history either. So moderation/removal probably happens more often than you realise unless you've noticed it happen to your own (typically after replying in any branch of a sub-thread that ultimately went in an unproductive direction).
I get the impression that while they're more okay with a bit of controversy as a driver to engagement than they used to be, they're still wary about not letting the place collapse into the type of cesspit seen elsewhere and alienating those users still worth keeping.
The mods are still definitely active here- I've literally just noticed that one sub-thread in this very discussion was removed, i.e. the root comment and all direct or indirect replies to it. (I should be clear that- ironically- in that case the *root* comment wasn't Jellied's own).
And to be clear, it wasn't me that hit the report button. Sometimes there's a note that comments have been removed by a moderator, otherwise it's just a message that a post, or it's ancestors got hit with the banhammer. There's also nothing ironic about it, I just sometimes get greedy for flame-roasted troll.
It's perhaps also where lessons could be learned from the X-Twitter, ie add a block or hide poster and thoughts that people find objectionable simply disappear. But then the forum is home grown as I understand it, so if it's worth the effort to add that functionality. Plus it may not work for the anonymong accounts, which are often the most disruptive. YMMV, of course.
> And to be clear, it wasn't me that hit the report button.
I'm not even clear whether all such deletions are necessarily the result of users "reporting" an individual post anyway. In this case, IIRC none of the comments were- on their own- report-and-ban-worthy offensive, maybe a mod just decided it was more of a distraction and/or unconstructive than it was worth.
At the end of the day, this is a privately-owned forum, and the owners or administrators have the right to draw the line on that sort of thing for themselves.
Judging by the current votes, you are in the small hardcore right wing group and GARM is correctly advising advertisers that advertising on Xitter will alienate over 90% of the market.
I realise advertising metrics can operate in a strange parallel dimension to reality. But picking an alternative form of opinion poll-
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.176878927
It's pretty much 50:50 between Trump and Harris, and assuming that also reflects a general split* in the US political spectrum.. The left isn't anywhere close to 90% of the market. Which is also where the whole left/right thing and advertising gets strange. Anheuser Busch placed a very large bet that appealing to a very small minority would somehow increase their sales. Instead it wiped $26bn off AB InBev's valuation, tanked Bud Lite sales and other AB InBev brands. And we perhaps learned that Bill Gates prefers Heineken.
But a rather strange advertising decision that ended up being an unmitigated disaster. People of course blamed this on the 'right wing', but oddly enough, people on the right drink beer and buy stuff, and may make up 50% of the market. And yet for some bizarre reason, groups like HARM don't want to try and reach that market, or instead alienate it. Again. this doesn't mean a free for all, but free speech should be protected, and it's up to legislators to define what content is illegal, not HARM. Or especially not attempt to define 'misinformation'.
*Oprah Winfrey at 800:1 to win the US election? Err.. I didn't think she was running. But hey ho, if a sucker wants to place a bet, a bookie will take their money.
A sensible advertiser will clearly try to keep thier brand as neutral they can, and would therefore place their adverts somewhere that alienates as close as possible to 0% of their market. If they are advertising somewhere that alienates 5% of their brand then they are by definition damaging the image of their product, and doing a bad job.
Prior to this current tsunami of tedious infantile culture war nonsense the lack of advertising on a platform from certain groups might have gone entirely unnoticed.
These days however advertisers face a new phenomenon of bullies with massive social media microphones attempting to damage these brands for having the temerity to try and keep themselves neutral. Said bullies have zero interest in free speech, they just want to force others to bend to thier will and represent their side in a culture war that the vast majority of people couldn’t care less about.
Musk implying that advertisers not supporting his site are ‘leftists’ is beyond nonsense. They’re the biggest capitalists out there.
"If they are advertising somewhere that alienates 5% of their brand then they are by definition damaging the image of their product, and doing a bad job."
Plenty of companies are very insistent with online ad agencies that their ads aren't shown on adult or warez sites for those same reasons.
I wonder how Tesla/etcetera would have done without Musk.
In contrast, a Steve Jobs was able to present Apple's best face, and craft a story that successively appealed to the original base ( birkinstocks ) and grow through hipster dufi, cognizenti then mainstream.
Whatever Musk has to offer, it isn't that.
So does Musk limit or enhance Tesla/etc ?
Musk provided second round investment that took Tesla from a start-up to a profitable niche supplier using the money Peter Thiel got him by growing and selling PayPal. Musk successfully faked greenness to get investment for the step up to larger numbers at lower cost. He successfully hyped Tesla as a technology company with a future despite very late and badly broken 'Full Self Driving'. He learned his lesson from being kicked out of PayPal and got himself so thoroughly entrenched at Tesla that no-one could kick him out when his extreme politics became a blatantly obvious barrier to sales. There was no-one with sufficient control of the company to prevent cyber-truck when it became clear that stainless steel is a very difficult material for building cars. He was able to extort a huge pay deal by threatening to stop hyping Tesla's future value.
Without Musk it is possible someone else would have funded Tesla or Tesla could have folded. Without Musk diverting green investment to Tesla it is likely that money would have gone to other electric vehicle start-ups and one of them would have grown beyond the niche market stage. SpaceX runs better with Musk elsewhere as demonstrated by the time he spent at Tesla failing to achieve 100% robotic production and by the amount of time he spends promoting offensive content on Xitter. He would have continued supporting stuff like Neuralink and The Boring company until he found something he could successfully hype well beyond its intrinsic value. The money would have been used to purchase an anti-social medial company's user base so he could make a second attempt at PayPal/x.com the social/banking/bitcoin trading company.
Tesla and such would be significantly better off without him. Everything Musk sticks his microween into becomes radioactive due to his awful sense of taste, if nothing else. (But there is plenty else)
Paypal? He got in because his dogshit payment gateway was eating a good chunk of an ecosystem too small to support two gateways. And once he was in, when they (wisely) rejected his plan to rebrand it "X", he threw a tanty and fucked off. PayPal has only gone from strength to strength since then, even becoming a verb. ("I'll PayPal you $20" sounds so much better than "I'll X you $20")
He got into Tesla, contributed nothing, ousted the original founders, and there's been an according nosedive in quality of the namesake cars, and the only "original" designed vehicle under his watch is a POS for nerds going through a mid-life crisis.
He took over Twitter, and straight suplexed what was a somewhat decent site straight into the ground by boldly telling their only source of revenue to "fuck off", on stage. Not quite sure how he expected to generate revenue without advertisers, no way Twitter Blue was even coming close to competing with that revenue stream.
The man could lose money running a casino, just like a certain orange gibbon. Interesting how that works out.
"So does Musk limit or enhance Tesla/etc ?"
Years ago he was a personality that attracting the interest of the media which as great for a load of free advertising that still pays today. The problem is that Elon has morphed into the character he was playing on TV and those tend to be one dimensional and a bit on the outrageous side that appeals to the little devil on people's shoulders telling them to be naughty, but they never do. Tesla has grown into an enterprise that needs much more professional management and many more models of cars. SpaceX is throwing away a solid business with their Falcon 9 for Buck Rogers and a satellite internet service with poor prospects for profitability but could do great harm. Twitter might have needed a good house cleaning, but got petrol and a match from the little boy whose parents would never spank him no matter how bad he behaved.
Access to capital can be the most challenging thing about running/starting a business. Elon could build lots of wealth by investing in companies if he had the ability to not meddle.
This post has been deleted by its author
I saw on the news that Donald Plump tried to tell the judge to overturn his conviction, because Harris said that she’s the prosecutor and he’s the felon, and he doesn’t like that, he wants to be the prosecutor and Harris is the felon, and I think the judge didn’t agree with the proposal (for whatever reason, who knows).
Musk and Trump are both people from highly-privileged backgrounds who never grew up because they never needed to.
They never don't live in the real world because they never had to- they've never had to *truly* suffer the consequences of what they did and they've never had to fully develop as human beings and move beyond the immature selfishness of childhood.
Aside from the sociopathic attitude, that also leaves them with a bizarre, distorted worldview.
By now, he's simply Performance Art.
An alternative take, from Sander van der Linden (a Cambridge social psychology prof, quoted on the BBC website) is that Musk may be radicalising himself on his own platform. That seems more even more amusing and more credible than Musk becoming the artist in residence.
The case is without merit: freedom of speech means allowing advertisers to spend their money wherever they want. Conspiracy, and therefore, RICO, would be criminal and therefore not grounds for a civil suit, but expect this to continue to figure in discussions.
I agree this is a distraction but I don't believe in the conspiracy theory stuff. Twitter has been losing relevance for years; large social networks are technically fairly easy to setup and the costs are not that high.
But a legal spat over advertising revenue might help stave off, or, alternatively allow Chapter 11 protection: Musk is personally on the line for money he borrowed to buy Twitter. Creditors might prefer Tesla equity over cash. And, apart from power, money is all that Musk cares about.
Considering how Social media (and Twitter in particular) played a prominent role in the various social uprisings in the Middle East a few years back. Anything that takes down Social media is probably quite beneficial to the Prince with a handy supply of people bearing Bone Saws... So I'm sure he's not complaining to much, what's a few billion to have Someone Else take it down for you?
The case is without merit: freedom of speech means allowing advertisers to spend their money wherever they want. Conspiracy, and therefore, RICO, would be criminal and therefore not grounds for a civil suit, but expect this to continue to figure in discussions.
I think you can bring private prosecutions for criminal matters, but this one's been filed as a civil suit and lists the claims. The filing references the work the House Judiciary Committee has been doing, along with comments that GARM & the advertisers may be violating anti-trust law. Which I guess raises the possibility of the Committee refering the matter to the DoJ, and then them joining or taking the case. Which would take time, but post November, the US and DoJ may be under new management and everyone's favorite orange person also owns a social media company and has made similar claims.
Might be a good time to check out popcorn futures..
IOW this little more than electioneering. Have the House Committees done anything useful in the current session?
Customers, and this includes even the most loathsome advertisers, are free to do their business wherever they want. In the US there are pressure groups all over the place trying to influence businesses one way or another: don't buy from Y because they support abortion/capital punishment/etc.
Make stupid bid for platform.
Back out of bid after the drugs have worn off.
Get forced back into the transaction by a court.
Take over platform.
Sack moderators.
Allow hate speech.
Tell advertisers that really don't want to be associated with hate speech to 'fuck off'.
Watch revenue tank.
Sue the advertisers.
Profit???
Plan 1: Make the platform friendly to scammers and charge them for advertising.
Plan 2: Make the platform friendly to bots and charge a monthly fee per bot to increase their visibility.
Plan 3: Sell the names and addresses of people who say things the rich and powerful do not like.
Plan 4: Restrict the spread of news that shareholders want suppressed.
Plan 5: Spread ridiculous lies to pump and dump Tesla.
The big one he has missed is using 'advertising' as a cover for bribing a presidential candidate but Truth Social has a strong lead on that market.
This post has been deleted by its author
On the BBC, they actually have comments from two lawyers (or legal professors), and they basically turn around and say this lawsuit has a Snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding. It's a basic First Amendment protection, that you cant force someone to advertise with you. Political Boycott is also Protected Speech. So it loses on both accounts...
So when do the lawyers who are actually taking these cases, start getting punished for bringing cases that have no chance? They're basically wasting court time and stealing money from their clients. A few lawyers losing their Bar Licence for forwarding cases that are guaranteed to lose, would be a good start for cleaning up the US court system...
But that of course is not going to happen... After all, the laws are written for lawyers, by lawyers...
a class action suit.
Because none of those companies are spending their advertising bucks on MY website either!
Ok, so it is only accessible via 127.0.0.1 but if Elon wins this then I'm sure that'll just be a minor detail to gloss over.
Anybody got the number of a reputable* "no win, no fee" lawyer?
* !!!
I do not have an X account. As such, whenever I go to anything linked on X, all I see is a demand to login.
If he really believes in freedom of speech like he keeps claiming, he would allow this speech to be free and not be putting artificial barriers in place restricting who gets to see everybody's brainfarts.
Accordingly, I would like to sue Mr. Musk for twenty billion dollars (figure plucked out of my arse), and donate all of that money to autism/ADHD/etc support centres in the EU (because it's about making a point, not personal enrichment).
The funny thing about statistics like that is shit gets real very quickly.
The population of Farnham in Hampshire was 39,488 in 2011 (quick Google search). If you subtract the 99% that don't get murdered, that means the mere 1% is just under four hundred people. That's still rather a lot, don't you think?
Should be thrown out. From the small evidence the reg showed, they said to their members when asked "Its still your choice if you want to be on the platform or not" (not a direct quote).
Also, it should be thrown out because he said "Go fuck yourselves" so they did.
Appears to me that billionaires now just abuse the court system as they can afford to do so. He's how Trump has lasted so long, ties people up in court until they run out of money.
Except the advertisers are the customers, not the other way around. If anything, advertisers could argue Twitter is charging too much, since they clearly aren't buying it. Except of course, they've got plenty of other options to buy ad space from. Which is what they're doing. So, no, Elon doesn't have any case at all. I doubt this suit even makes it into a courtroom. Suing your customers because they won't buy your product is so obviously absurd, I wouldn't be surprised if it was dismissed with prejudice.
Who do you think you are kidding Mr. X-Twitter,
When you told advertisers to F' off & run?
GARM are the boys who didn't play your silly game.
Your team saw the losses, that made you think again.
'Cause who do you think you are kidding Mr. X-Twitter.
We all think old Twitters done
Mr. GARM goes to court on the eight twenty-one,
While we all read El' Reg grinning & really enjoying the fun.
So who do you think you are kidding Mr. X-Twitter,
We all think old Twitters done.
Just to make sure it's clear, Twitter is selling a product (advertising space). The customers (ad companies) don't want to buy the product.
And that's it, that's all you need to know. Musk thinks he can sue his customers for not buying his product, but we all know this is a preposterous proposition. It's got as much chance to succeed as if Microsoft tried to sue tech companies for buying MacBooks rather than Surface Laptops.
Claiming the advertisers (customers) are engaging in antitrust behavior would be like claiming it's illegal for me to not buy apple products, and to tell my friends that I don't think their products are worth the money.
Just to make sure it's clear, Twitter is selling a product (advertising space). The customers (ad companies) don't want to buy the product.
It's been X for a while now. I know old hobbits die hard but it's changed. It's an exciting multi-function social media space that sells the ability for customers to speak their brainz, buy blue ticks, be bombarded by sponsored and promoted messages, do your online shopping & payments, save the planet and show all your friends pics from your holiday on Mars. It's not my space, it's your space. So some of those are forward looking statements, but X will be fully self driving by 2023.
The other customers (advertisers) probably do want to sell to X's customers, but we're talking late-stage capitalism so there are a bunch of intermediaries that Musk is claiming are unjustly interfering with his goals, or financial ones anyway. Hence the sueball, which isn't the first.
And that's it, that's all you need to know. Musk thinks he can sue his customers for not buying his product, but we all know this is a preposterous proposition. It's got as much chance to succeed as if Microsoft tried to sue tech companies for buying MacBooks rather than Surface Laptops.
Probably a bad analogy given the number of times Microsoft has been on the receiving end of lawsuits claiming uncompetitive and anti-trust behaviours, many of which it's lost and yet Microsoft carries on being Microsoft. It might be more like every time someone uses Bing, or sends an email, they get an advert telling people to buy Surface Laptops because MacBooks are made by Nazis using slave labour in their Antarctican sweatshops. Whether you were in the market for a laptop or not. Of course that would demonstrably be false, so Apple could sue and win.
But back to X. So a while ago, an allegedly radical anti-free speech organisation, Media Matters, published an explosive report that a lot of the MSM picked up and run with. After extensive trial and effort, Media Matters managed to finally engineer a situation that got an advert placed next to an allegedly 'Nazi' bit of content. Which according to X, virtually nobody else saw, or would have ever seen unless they were really, really trying. But because of the noise generated, a bunch of advertisers pulled their ad spend from X.
I mean nobody wants their Fanta or VW ads appearing near anything Nazi related, now do they?
So X sued Media Matters, and that particular case is working it's way through the US legal system and the trial is due April 7th 2025. But that story resulted in the meme surfacing that Nazis are everywhere on X. Don't place your ads for jackboots on X! So if you read the latest filing, X is claiming much the same as in its case against Media Matters that Garm et al are spreading misinformation, or just using their commercial muscle to deny X revenues. The kind of significant market power or market abuse that anti-trust legislation is usually designed to prevent. But I suspect X will win their case against Media Matters, probably against GARM for the same reasons, and lose against the individual advertisers, unless X can prove cartel or RICO-like anti-competitive behaviour.
But it's all very strange. If GARM (or Media Matters) were right, then people asking about how to get blood out of their SS uniforms would have had ads placed for Persil, and Unilever's marketing people would have been able to produce thousands of examples where their products are placed next to objectionable content. But they don't seem able to, or perhaps they're saving that for trial. Advertisers track everything, so surely they'd have reams of examples of cases where their ads have been paired. Perhaps X is right and those cases are Vanishingly small and advertisers have trouble finding them in between trying to work out why their ads have been placed against totally irrelevant content and their money wasted*.
The same is also true with many of the commenters here. Many seem far more familiar with X than I am, and are presumably constantly bombarded with Nazi and 'far right' promotions. Most of the people I know have never had this problem, so perhaps it's like with Media Matters. If you look hard enough for that kind of stuff, perhaps you'll find it, and then thanks to the power of 'analytics' and 'AI', they'll keep serving you right.. Which is also why I'm getting a bit worried about the lefties strange obsession with Nazis, and why they imagine them being everywhere.
*In this respect, I'd argue this is a bit of a victimless crime. X doesn't have advertisers? Great! If it gets more interesting video content, perhaps it'll replace YT and there won't be as many investment scams injected into videos showing cute cats.
I am suprised Elon 'pedo guy' Musk is even bothered about whether companies buy ads on Twixer or not, as for a long time it looked like he was just trying to drive away everyone from the platform who wasn't one of his fanbois.
BTW i apologies if 'pedo guy' means something else to Musk, its a local phrase from where i live which means a massive bell end of a man child who needs to be knocked down a peg or two from his high horse.
... so that the lesson includes "The differences between protected free speech, unprotected free speech, and liability to any resultant consequences".
Or maybe just put together a short yet informative public information film and broadcast it everywhere for a month.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
