Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More advertisers halt spending on X in growing backlash against Musk

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: More advertisers halt spending on X in growing backlash against Musk

#41

Post by foogazi »

clipsy wrote: post #36
throw0101b wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He did not found Tesla, did he? There was a legal agreement that allows him to call himself that: > The company was incorporated as Tesla Motors, Inc. on July 1, 2003, by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning.[12][13] Eberhard and Tarpenning served as CEO and CFO, respectively.[14] Eberhard said that he wanted to build "a car manufacturer that is also a technology company", with its core technologies as "the battery,…

Legal agreements do not supersede facts. He has the legal right to falsely claim he is a/the founder of Tesla, nothing more.

Yes, either you founded it or not. Buying the rights to a title isn’t the same thing

He did build the Tesla we know, that is not in question

Re: More advertisers halt spending on X in growing backlash against Musk

#42

Post by mmcwilliams »

roenxi wrote: post #4

There is a lot here to be think about. Three most interesting points to me are 1. These companies have bottom-of-the-barrel moral standards and don't care what one person on Twitter is Tweeting. This has to be political manoeuvring of some sort. 2. A lot of advertisers were quitting Twitter a while ago weren't they? But it has been months now. If they're still quitting, that suggests the flood of quitters is more of…

This is an odd take. Today on Twitter I saw an ad for a whites-only dating service with the photo of a celebrity who very likely did not endorse the company with the use of a racial slur (with an "r" at the end). Whatever you think about the "moral standards" of the companies in question, it makes sense that they would not want to put their brand on the same platform that would serve these ads alongside theirs. That doesn't seem to be political maneuvering but very basic advertising sense.

Re: More advertisers halt spending on X in growing backlash against Musk

#43

Post by aeonik »

kuhewa wrote: post #28
dorkwood wrote: post #13

As Sun Tzu said, when you are strong, appear weak.

Besides the strong (when they are expertly deploying an elaborate ruse), you know who else often appears weak? The weak.

So if someone appears "strong", does that mean they are also "weak"?

"Strong" → "Appears Weak" "Weak" → "Appears Weak" ⊕ "Feigns strength"

Everyone is "weak" ∨ "appears weak"?

Is "appearance of strength" ∧ "strong" valid in this meta?

I need someone's help with the logic. I'm a bit rusty.

I think it's just an implication, so it is valid to "appear strong" ∧ "be strong"

I'm also curious about the distribution here.

I'm also just now noticing how weird the word strong is.

It's possible that this is the reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_satiation

Re: More advertisers halt spending on X in growing backlash against Musk

#44

Post by kuhewa »

aeonik wrote: post #43
kuhewa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides the strong (when they are expertly deploying an elaborate ruse), you know who else often appears weak? The weak.

So if someone appears "strong", does that mean they are also "weak"? "Strong" → "Appears Weak" "Weak" → "Appears Weak" ⊕ "Feigns strength" Everyone is "weak" ∨ "appears weak"? Is "appearance of strength" ∧ "strong" valid in this meta? I need someone's help with the logic. I'm a bit rusty. I think it's just an implication, so it is valid to "appear strong" ∧ "be strong" I'm also curious about the distribution here. I'…

Yeah unfortunately the conjunctions just aren't commutative in the game of strongy-weaky.

Re: More advertisers halt spending on X in growing backlash against Musk

#45

Post by dang »

greyface- wrote: post #2

Syndicated from NYT, original URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/18/technology/elon-musk-twit...

Thanks, let's use that above since it's the canonical source.

Submitted link was https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/nov/18/more-advertise..., which appears to be unpaywalled.

Re: More advertisers halt spending on X in growing backlash against Musk

#46

Post by [deleted] »

more_corn wrote: post #33
totallywrong wrote: post #10

This guy would be considered a genius, admired and respected worldwide, a living legend.. if he'd never opened that Twitter account. But he did, so he's just another eccentric rich idiot.

It is better to remain silent and be thought an idiot than to speak and remove all doubt.

[deleted]

Re: More advertisers halt spending on X in growing backlash against Musk

#47

Post by matisseverduyn »

The reason for the lawsuit [1] seems to contradict itself; it's against spreading misinformation on X, while invoking the principle of allowing misinformation on X?

> "But for speech to be truly free, we must also have the freedom to see or hear things that some people may consider objectionable. We believe that everyone has the right to make up their own minds about what to read..."

So... "Let [Media Matters] say what you [consider objectionable], and [let us make up our own minds about what to read]."

I do get that that shouldn't preclude lawsuits for slander/libel... but suing people out of existence with "thermonuclear" lawsuits seems to be roughly the same type of tyranny as the censoring he's taking a stand against.

[1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1725771191644758037

Re: More advertisers halt spending on X in growing backlash against Musk

#48

Post by iamdbtoo »

roenxi wrote: post #4

There is a lot here to be think about. Three most interesting points to me are 1. These companies have bottom-of-the-barrel moral standards and don't care what one person on Twitter is Tweeting. This has to be political manoeuvring of some sort. 2. A lot of advertisers were quitting Twitter a while ago weren't they? But it has been months now. If they're still quitting, that suggests the flood of quitters is more of…

> These companies have bottom-of-the-barrel moral standards and don't care what one person on Twitter is Tweeting.

Advertisers have cared about placement for as long as advertising has existed.

Re: More advertisers halt spending on X in growing backlash against Musk

#49

Post by anonymouskimmer »

throw0101b wrote: post #39
roenxi wrote: post #4

There is a lot here to be think about. Three most interesting points to me are 1. These companies have bottom-of-the-barrel moral standards and don't care what one person on Twitter is Tweeting. This has to be political manoeuvring of some sort. 2. A lot of advertisers were quitting Twitter a while ago weren't they? But it has been months now. If they're still quitting, that suggests the flood of quitters is more of…

> 3. Musk is still the wealthiest human on the planet (in history? I expect in nominal terms he's the wealthiest in history). John D. Rockefeller would like to have a word if we're talking about Americans, as would Carnegie and Vanderbilt: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_Americans_in_h... Internationally: Augustus Caesar, Emperor Shenzong, Akbar I: * https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/arti…

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to refer to heads of state as having the wealth of the state. Musk can effectively spend all of his wealth if he chooses to (after paying his debts). Heads of state really can't, except on the state itself. Not even absolute monarchs.

Re: More advertisers halt spending on X in growing backlash against Musk

#50

Post by manicennui »

roenxi wrote: post #4

There is a lot here to be think about. Three most interesting points to me are 1. These companies have bottom-of-the-barrel moral standards and don't care what one person on Twitter is Tweeting. This has to be political manoeuvring of some sort. 2. A lot of advertisers were quitting Twitter a while ago weren't they? But it has been months now. If they're still quitting, that suggests the flood of quitters is more of…

And the gold medal in mental gymnastics goes to...

Twitter has never been a great platform to advertise on, the quality of the advertisers has dropped dramatically this year, and companies are distancing themselves from the clown show. There is no secret conspiracy. Advertising on Twitter just doesn't make sense.

Post reply on HN