Elon Musk, the owner of X, criticized advertisers with expletives on Wednesday at The New York Times’s DealBook Summit.
When I mentioned communism and socialism I was pointing to the mischaracterization of capitalism. Capitalism is just the free and open market and when companies collude together to manipulate the market that’s not capitalism. Capitalism has built in rules against market manipulation and monopolies unfortunately that requires the government to do it’s job to enforce it, which it’s been doing a piss poor job of.
What evidence is there that the companies are colluding? Are there communication logs where they all conversed and decided to pull ads? Is there any evidence at all that the companies had any interaction with each other about this and made a unifying decision to cancel their ads?
Collusion requires entities to work together to achieve a mutual goal. Otherwise, it’s just a coincidence of timing.
At the moment it’s speculation, but from past events involving these same companies we’ve witnessed collusion.
What past events with which companies?
And who is this “we” you’re referring to? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
So far you’ve admitted to speculating on ethereal events and are using that as your basis for claiming foul play while providing no evidence for any of it.
Capitalism has built in rules against market manipulation and monopolies
It most assuredly does not. Addressing these externalities is the responsibility of government.
The fact that it requires a free and open market are the rules and since it’s a component of the government the government has to make sure the system is free and open.
No, some level of punishment of those that try to manipulate/manopolize the market.
Your definition of capitalism in this argument is simply a no true scotsman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman.
Just because you’re able to lookup fancy words doesn’t make my sentence invalid. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
I looked up and provided the wikipedia article purely for your benefit so you could know which (informal) fallacy your tired, trash argument falls under.
I think you might be having difficulty grasping the idea that people have marketing budgets and if say the ceo of a company you advertise on very publicly endorses hate speech it does create a brand management problem.
You want your products to not be associated with things like, say, racism, which are kind of “yucky” to a lot of people.
As a result you might refocus spending. If a bunch of people do this at once this doesn’t mean there’s collusion. For example, during a thunderstorm you might see less people outside. This isn’t because they all colluding - people don’t like being struck by lightning. Similarly, companies don’t want their brands to be “yucky” to the average consumer and often its just a matter of moving the ad spending to another platform without the baggage.
You could ONLY limit this effect by banning advertising entirely.
Yes you’re right about public image and a company wanting to preserve it. And I might be a little hyperbolic about what I’m saying. But really if it was just public image along with their ads, they would delete/(stop using) all of their accounts to show that they didn’t want anything to do with Twitter as long as they had hateful content on there.
That doesn’t follow. Diverting ad spending is very different than closing feedback channels. For one, its likely to be handled by different departments in most companies and marketing budgets are likely to be far higher and more contentious than like micromanaging a social media handler.
