• Clay_pidgin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    He has the right to say whatever he wants, especially on a platform he owns, and advertisers have the right to not put their ads next to content that they disapprove of. He’s a ridiculous manchild.

      • Clay_pidgin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No? Do you think they have some obligation to keep running ads on Twitter wether they want to or not?

        • Lusamommy@alien.topOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nobody said they were obligated to run ads. Why are you people so intent on trying to change the subject?

          • Clay_pidgin
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Please clarify what you think the subject is.

            I summarize this story as: Musk tweets something offensive, advertisers don’t like their ads associated with him, advertisers pull their ads, Musk reenacts the fable of the sour grapes. Is there more to the story that I’m missing?

            • TJD
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You, if you’ve already forgotten, called musk a “manchild” for not just doing what advertisers wanted. When you were asked why the advertisers are not also “manchildren” for crying about what’s on Twitter, you just tried to change the topic to free markets. Nobody, anywhere, was saying that the advertisers were not allowed to pull out. You were asked a question of value about their choice to pull out.

              • Clay_pidgin
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No, I called him a manchild because he told the businesses on whom Twitter’s continued existence depends to go fuck themselves. He’s pure Ego, just saying whatever comes to mind without regard for the consequences. “what the advertisers want” is not to have their ads run next to anti semitic, racist, or otherwise offensive content. Same as every other advertiser on every other platform. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

                • TJD
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ahh, I didn’t realize you were just pro-corporate censorship via advertiser interest. Should’ve lead with that. See, not all of us agree that advertisements having such a major sway in what we all see is a good thing.

                  • prettybunnys
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What is the difference between people choosing to boycott a brand and a brand choosing to boycott another brand?

                    Corporations, as our legal system has shown, are people.

                    They have unlimited free speech.

                    This is a free speech issue, the free market dictates they can do as they please.

                    Frankly I’m shocked that the stance is to defend musk here. He’s saying things that align with ideologies we once waged war across the world to eradicate and now somehow he is the beacon of free speech?

                    He can say what he wants, it doesn’t change that he’s acting like a petulant manchild. Brands choosing to distance themselves from speech and behavior they don’t want to be associated with doesn’t make them “man children” it makes them “business acting responsibly in the interests of their shareholders” typically.

                    It’s so strange that these ideas are flipped, at the base of it the difference between what is being done is “why” and it’s telling that the loud idiot is again the one chosen.

        • Lusamommy@alien.topOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nobody said otherwise. Is this the new CNN talking point you guys were all told to spam or something? Free market has nothing to do with it.