• Clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months 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@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months 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
          ·
          11 months ago

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

          • Clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months 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@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months 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@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months 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@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  11 months 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.

        • Lusamommy@alien.topOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months 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.