Elon Musk sits down with Andrew Ross Sorkin at the 'New York TImes' DealBook Summit' on a wide-ranging interview including anti-semitism, an advertiser boyco...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
No you fucking weren’t. You were just spamming about free speech because you just wanted to regurgitate whatever talking points you read and didn’t care to notice that I never once said otherwise.
Have a good one hombre, I don’t think it’s worth continuing any “conversation” here.
Glad you finally realized you have nothing remotely worth saying. Good riddance.
Nobody said they were obligated to run ads. Why are you people so intent on trying to change the subject?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I never said otherwise you fucking retarded imbecile. Get with the fucking conversation or stop spamming your moronic shit.
I was directly responding to what you said.
Have a good one hombre, I don’t think it’s worth continuing any “conversation” here.
No you fucking weren’t. You were just spamming about free speech because you just wanted to regurgitate whatever talking points you read and didn’t care to notice that I never once said otherwise.
Glad you finally realized you have nothing remotely worth saying. Good riddance.