Elon Musk to advertisers who are trying to ‘blackmail’ him: ‘Go f--- yourself’

It seems twitter is under threat from an advertising boycott because anti-Semitism , speaking at the 'New York TImes' DealBook Summit yesterday Elon when asked about the boycott responded with GFU , the audience of top business folk were stunned into silence so Elon repeats to which they titter , Elon says if twitter folds because of an advertising boycott then the world will know why twitter failed .... but will they care.

I agree with Elon's sentiment and applaud him for it but can't help thinking there's a time and a place and that probably wasn't the place.


How to blow an interviewers mind 101

a reply to: gortex

It’s got nothing to do with antisemitism.
Musk said nothing that was antisemitic.

This is just more cancel culture bs from woke corporations.
They just can’t handle the fact that they don’t control Twitter anymore.
Media matters started this and I think they have a beat down coming to them.

He has huge nuts to say what he said in that particular forum.
Regardless of his politics it’s refreshing to see people in this day and age stand up the way he does.

I can understand the frustration.

The entire world seems to be on an anti-Semitism kick right now; but the CEOs of the top companies and government leaders are going to make an example out of Elon in order to pretend they themselves are not anti-Semitic, while they continue to bask in the anti-Semitisc protests around the world? It's disingenuous and self serving.

But Elon is a tool and probably diverse it anyway.

that's what F-U money is all about. Why have it if you can't use it.

a reply to: gortex

Elon says if twitter folds because of an advertising boycott then the world will know why twitter failed

Yeah. Because Musk drove it into the ground.

By the way, did anyone else notice that Musk kept calling the site Twitter? Even he doesn't use his own dumb branding.

originally posted by: network dude
that's what F-U money is all about. Why have it if you can't use it.

Sure. And if the goal was to spend 44 B$ for the warm glow of moral superiority that comes from destroying a viable business "on principle" then mission accomplished. If the goal was to create a viable business that is somehow better than before you took over, then telling your customers to F-off might not have been the smartest move.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: gortex

Elon says if twitter folds because of an advertising boycott then the world will know why twitter failed

Yeah. Because Musk drove it into the ground.

By the way, did anyone else notice that Musk kept calling the site Twitter? Even he doesn't use his own dumb branding.

Musk has a lot of problems Id grante you that; but I would hardly call the unethical reporting by media maters and the way they manipulated the Twitter search engine to create a scandal Musk's fault.

a reply to: Threadbarer

By the way, did anyone else notice that Musk kept calling the site Twitter?

The company name is Twitter, Inc.


Let's face it , it's still twitter.

What I don't understand is all the people screaming on X to cancel Disney until they come back to advertising on X, yet I thought they already canceled Disney because "groomers" and why would they want their ads back,because again "groomers"?

I can never keep up with the flipping.

Anyway, advertisers should have the freedom to advertise where they choose, right?

a reply to: frogs453

What I don't understand is all the people screaming on X to cancel Disney until they come back to advertising on X,

It's probably more appropriate to cancel Disney until they drop the woke and start making shows and movies people want to watch.

a reply to: frogs453

Anyway, advertisers should have the freedom to advertise where they choose, right?

Yep.

But is this..that? Or is it a group of large companies trying to impose their will by blackmail?

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: network dude
that's what F-U money is all about. Why have it if you can't use it.

Sure. And if the goal was to spend 44 B$ for the warm glow of moral superiority that comes from destroying a viable business "on principle" then mission accomplished. If the goal was to create a viable business that is somehow better than before you took over, then telling your customers to F-off might not have been the smartest move.

Maybe the goal was to destroy a business that was using its immense power, and the fact that the internet is unregulated in the same way all other media content is, to influence elections.

It's unfortunate that it takes 44 B$ to accomplish that goal given the fact there are so many more tech companies left still doing so.

Maybe Corpocracy won't be so bad in the future.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: network dude
that's what F-U money is all about. Why have it if you can't use it.

Sure. And if the goal was to spend 44 B$ for the warm glow of moral superiority that comes from destroying a viable business "on principle" then mission accomplished. If the goal was to create a viable business that is somehow better than before you took over, then telling your customers to F-off might not have been the smartest move.

Yup, it's just like when an actor or music artist starts spouting their political ideals to everyone. Pissing off half your fan base is dumb unless that's what you wanted. Musk has the money to do what he wants, and it appears that's exactly what he's doing. I wonder, did you tell Bruce Springsteen to close his pie hole, or is that different?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: frogs453

Anyway, advertisers should have the freedom to advertise where they choose, right?

Yep.

But is this..that? Or is it a group of large companies trying to impose their will by blackmail?

Why does it matter the motivations of the advertisers? Aren't they free to pull their advertisements for any reason, even to impose their will?


I guess the only time that is not true is if they are violating any anti competition laws.

a reply to: Dandandat3

For their own purposes, it doesn't matter.

For the publics purpose thought, it plays a part.

As Elon said, "Earth will decide."

It could be Elon turning a negative into a positive , he wants a subscription model for twitter so users will have a choice accepting a subscription free speech platform or lose the site altogether.

Isn't it obvious that the advertisers are free to do what they want? Well except blackmail.

Otherwise why would he be telling them to f off?

Good for him.

I'm sure there will be other advertisers.

And disney has just become a woke joke.

a reply to: gortex

I love this so much.
I’m pretty neutral on Elon.

I was involved with something that just ticked me off, so I decided to create my own.
In such I am now also able to tell people to F off. You can only control yourself, not others, so don’t give a F about them.
If they don’t like X, they shouldn’t be on there. The thing is they do, and they want to whine about it.

I do think X is transforming into something different, and it may not be for everyone. It is not something I use as much as other platforms.

Advertising is a two way street paved in money. Twitter has never worked in the black and add revenue was one of the only things besides investors keeping the brand afloat. The amount of placing those adds can be in the 10's of thousands per incidence depending on the amount of people the company is trying to reach. Flip side is companies need those adds targeted at certain demographics to continue at existing profite margins, and need spaces to put those adds in front of the most eyes.

Marketing companies can choose to continue or drop adds at their discretion based on those quantifiable numbers and the platforms ability to reach that demographic. However, you include the negative or polarizing content those adds are being placed with, and a marketing company will most definitely pull their assets out in favor of a more welcoming platform with a better hit percentage.

Elon Musk is an ass, just like every other ass with money. They believe that money somehow makes them smarter, and because of that, they think we actually care about what they say and somehow worship them. This time he wrote checks his ass can't cash, and are probably bouncing.

He hasn't paid rent in the Twitter building in almost a year, hasn't paid any employees he fired without cause and is involved in multiple lawsuits because of it, paid 44 billion dollars for a company that is now worth less than half and still owes a ton to the people who loaned him the money and can't even remember the new name he changed his company to.

Money has shown that it buys a lot of things, wisdom and common sense are not those things. Let's see how many companies pull out after this latest "I'm rich I can do whatever I want" tantrum

With the Middle East heating up again it has become a divisive issue. Lot of antisemitic slander going around these days. The Zionist community does have a lot of money and people in congress. As for general population it is a small percentage so will still be lots of users of Twitter.

So as the troubles start back up in Gaza and the West Bank, is there going to be more and bigger corporate fractures over this issue as it splits the world in two?