- X users are complaining about an influx of low-quality ads promoting crypto scams and AI “undressing” apps.
- The decline in reputable advertisers on X has made the platform more reliant on less reputable ad buyers.
- The exodus of advertisers, partially due to Elon Musk’s controversial behavior, has left X with a growing revenue gap.
Archive link: https://archive.ph/sbOxS
You advertise to your audience. Ads targeting the perverse and the stupid seem perfectly suited to twitter.
You may not like it, but this is what peak advertising looks like. Add in some T-shirts with swastikas on them, and they’ve nailed their target demographic.
I’ve clicked a few “sources” from a dude I know on Facebook that constantly posts his crazy bullshit. Dick pill ads for days.
404 Media report[ed] last month that ads promoting “semen stealing” were showing up on the site.
Wait what now
I wanted to see what kind of ads that might actually be since I have zero concept. I do not recommend typing “semen stealing” into Google innocently and hoping for an answer.
I’m going to have some weird ads now…
If you don’t want to search it up, here are the first 3 DuckDuckGo results for “semen stealing”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_fatherhood
https://news.yahoo.com/spurgling-stealing-sperm-pregnant-121820779.html
https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2022/01/10831906/baby-trapping-illegal
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Forced fatherhood or imposed paternity, occurs when a man’s semen is used, against his will or without his knowledge or consent, to inseminate a woman, it includes deception by a partner about their ability to get pregnant or use of contraceptives, birth control sabotage, and sexual assaults of males that result in pregnancy. “Sperm theft” (also known as “unauthorized use of sperm”, “spermjacking” or “spurgling” (a portmanteau of sperm and burgling), refers to a specific form of forced fatherhood where a males semen is collected without his consent. Although the term uses the word “theft”, it more closely falls under a state of fraud or breach of contract. Stealing of sperm in itself without using it for successful insemination is not illegal and is difficult to prove. It usually has no bearing on issues like child support.
I saw… that. But what could someone advertise about it! And that’s a curiosity those links don’t answer…
Yea this guy is the hero of the thread, I would have just not bothered with the article if it wasn’t for you pointing that line out
Well he told advertisers to fuck off so they did.
To me as an average Joe it seems pretty dumb to tell your advertisers to fuck off when they provide a big chunk of your income but hey, I’m not a stable genius billionaire so I just don’t get Elon’s 5D chess moves. Right?
I’m calling it now. Even if his aim was to not destroy Twitter from the inside, he will absolutely say that was his goal when it eventually happens.
People like this never, pathologically, ever, ever admit making a mistake.
He has too much money to give a shit, he lost more money than anyone has literally ever on this deal and he still has more money than almost anyone who’s ever lived. Only way he stops being like this is if he drops dead from the inevitable overdose he’s queuing up for himself
Eh most of that “money” is actually leveraged Tesla shares. Tesla shares that are overvalued. If he runs Tesla into the ground it’s not actually implausible he goes bankrupt.
Of course for the billionaires “going bankrupt” isn’t the same as it is for you an me. He’ll still live a life of luxury we can’t even imagine, he just won’t control as much of the economy as he does now. And he can always scam his true believers out of some money by creating a startup promising to to build robot dolphins or whatever (it doesn’t matter he’s a hype man) which he’ll never deliver and idiots will throw money at him.
Even if his aim was to not destroy Twitter from the inside, he will absolutely say that was his goal when it eventually happens.
Could that open him up to lawsuits from investors?
His investors wanted this. Twitter was a huge threat to a few oil rich autocratic regimes.
I though Twitter is publicly traded and has stocks? That would mean that he definitely has a duty towards investors who bought the shares to lead the company in a responsible way, and if he claimed that he destroyed it on purpose, it should lead to a lawsuit from them. But I ain’t no lawyer, only vaguely remember hearing something like that. Or does he own 100% of the shares himself and is the sole investor?
Weird, this week they’re also claiming that TwitX has 24 times the engaged users of YouTube.
Prime example of “source? trust me bro”. Elon can make up whatever metrics he needs to, but it doesn’t make the platform any better
I’m curious about what their definition of “engaged” is. I imagine most people don’t make comments on YouTube videos, but twitter’s main focus has always been posting and commenting on others’ posts.
