Connect to a VPN & try different browsers until you can get past the captcha in one of them. If I can't get past it in 2 tries, I switch to a different VPN server.
It's a fake CAPTCHA. No matter how many times you pass it'll make you try again. It's tarpitting you because you're using some technology to increase your privacy, such as iCloud Private Relay or Cloudflare's DoH, and the operator of archive.today is opposed to privacy.
The whole tweet (https://twitter.com/breakingbaht/status/1724892505647296620) repeats the antisemitic trope that there's a Jewish conspiracy to "flood" Western countries with immigrants to dilute white voting and cultural power. This--it should go without saying--is false.
I don't want to be 'that guy' but it's hard to determine exactly what that tweet says because the wording is so convoluted and indirected.
In particular the "that support flooding their country" part seems to have some articles missing, as such it could mean many things. I'd read 'their country' as meaning Israel in this context. I mean, if you're talking about Jewish people and you then use 'their country' the obvious implication is Israel.
"Their country" -- turns out when people say "my country", they mean the country they live in. So "western Jewish populations" refers, in large part, to Jewish people in America who call themselves Americans, because that's what they are.
The ways that (truly monstrous) people want to destroy Israel is not by literally "flooding" it (normally I'd lol here but man, this is depressing) because then the Palestinians couldn't live there, but also because it's impossible.
Your interpretation of this post rests on American Jews identifying more strongly as Israelis than Americans (pretty problematic right there) and the feasibility of anyone lowering Israel below the level of the Mediterranean (Bond villain-level thinking here).
what? it doesn't say that. It's talking about Isreal, it doesn't say that the jewish people are orchestrating immigration to reduce the white population, where are you getting that from?
The tweet says "I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don't exactly like them too much."
The guy who shot up Tree of Life synagogue (a couple of blocks away from where my brother and his partner live) was pushing the idea that Jewish people are helping migrant caravans over the US-Mexico border--a trope all over Gab and other antisemitic forums.
Let's just all stop giving these guys the benefit of the doubt here.
Nah, I'm not. It might seem like I'm arguing my own point of view here, but all I'm doing is echoing what every pro-Jewish group has written about the post, which neither Musk or its author have disagreed with. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with reality.
> You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with reality.
I'm not arguing with 'reality' I'm arguing, it seems, with multiple opinions. Just because a consensus opinion has been reached doesn't make that opinion a reality.
My read of it seems viable and another person here has reached the same conclusion.
I think the tweet and Musk are just trying to say that Jews are equally racist as whites and they got no right to cry against racism. At least that was my understanding. How is calling some race racist that big of a deal. People do it against all the race specially white.
The news media loves using association and innuendo to hold people's hands through some emotional journey instead of just copying/linking the damn source material and letting people judge for themselves. This has resulted in some quite tenuous and libelous accusations on other occasions, but in this case the characterization is on point:
@breakingbaht: "Okay. Jewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don't exactly like them too much. You want truth said to your face, there it is."
@elonmusk: "You have said the actual truth"
There's nothing defensible about this. Someone writes an intellectually lazy not-even-wrong racist rant, and Musk jumps in with validation and encouragement. It does not matter that there also happens to be some reasonable nuanced criticism that rant can be said to encompass - the original is still an overly broad racist rant that should be condemned by anyone interested in reasoned truth.
So it sounds like you think the ends justify the means, if the lie is benign enough, journalists should be encouraged to do so if for the right reasons?
I wasn't defending the tweet, I was pointing out there's not a connection to the 'replacement theory'. It's bullshit. It's a fake connection.
I don't know how you got "the ends justify the means" from my comment. I basically said they're a broken clock, but on this occasion at least they aren't outright wrong. It doesn't seem like a "fake" connection to me, rather just an overly-prescriptive one implying there is some overarching "theory". "Trope" would be a much better term.
It's about as related to "replacement theory" as a Tweet calling out "the evils of the bourgeoisie" would be to Marxism.
I am not sure if you genuinely believe otherwise or think the rest of us are stupid enough that we might entertain doubts about this just because you keep saying it's not the case.
Like, I get that "replacement theory" and the related conspiracy theories that led to the Tree of Life Synagogue attack allege an active and ill-intentioned participation on the part of Jews in bringing in minorities, whereas the Tweet in question refers only to its authors perception that most Jews are liberal and woke, and is pointing out that many minorities in that camp are doing or saying things that many Jews interpret as bigoted towards them.
But given its blanket assumption about the views of most Jews and is allegation that "Jewish communties have been pushing...dialectical hatred against whites" and its use of the language "hordes of minorities that support flooding their country", I don't see why we should split hairs and refuse to draw some very plausible inferences about this Tweet --namely, that "replacement theory" a) was on the author's mind as he wrote it; b) that he endorses that conspiracy theory; c) that he wrote it knowing that anyone who is familiar with that conspiracy theory would recognize it here. His Tweet is just "replacement theory" with a false mustache and glasses.
I found the statement Musk agrees with more weird than anything. I mean "jewish communities" have been pushing hatred against whites. For a start they are mostly white themselves, and which jewish communities? I know a few and none seem to preach that. Odd.
Consider yourself fortunate! I had a similar immediate reaction, but I'm half-aware that when pressed, the racism enthusiast community has all sorts of canon like "When 'doctor' so and so laid out the basic races Jewish people were distinct from Caucasians based on the shape of their skulls" and shit like that.
There is a whole parallel economy popping up due to all these cancellations. Rumble is even creating a parallel aws for these startups to run on. (Rumble cloud)
I wonder what the parallel of visa/matercard/discover and consequently (paypal and stripe) would be because these services/cards are going to be the root of the parallel economy.
> major payment processors aren't into that "economy" and the reasons rhyme with "Fraud and Chargebacks."
I feel like this is the lemon problem, where that group of people are mainly lemons. As more normal people move over, i feel like it will be more Signal (chat app) and less Mastodon/Keybase/Tor.
...no? I can't even imagine where you're getting that from. The NYT and Twitter/X are not even remotely competitors. One is full-length news articles from highly vetted/selected journalists, the other is short tweets from anyone and everyone.
Nobody's dropping their NYT subscription and replacing it with Twitter/X, conversely nobody's looking for the NYT to replace what they get from Twitter/X.
Saying they're in competition is like saying The Olive Garden restaurant chain competes with 7-Eleven convenience stores. Sure you can buy food at both of them, but they're not in competition. They're totally different categories.
While I agree in general and yes, they are not competitors in any way, I wouldn't say "nobody" for your examples. While still on Twitter I had a curated list of journalists and researchers which effectively was a newspaper replacement for me (for specific topics only).
In fact, I would say that Twitter/X increases the demand for news, since that's what's shared and discussed on the platform. And vice versa: Reading about the latest outrages in the NYT gives the people something to tweet about. So each increases demand for the other. They're the frenemies who need each other more than they know.
Modern media like Twitter and Reddit and HN and (dare I say) 4chan is where news breaks first.
By the time I see it on the NYT Ive already read about it on numerous other platforms and usually with better information because its written by people firsthand on the scene or people directly in the know.
Information moves at lightspeed.
Literally dont read the NYT or WaPo anymore. I like that they exist for the abstract idea that quality journalism exists but practically never use them.
So yes Twitter is absolutely a competitor, due to its immediacy and its massive userbase.
Social media personalities aren't replacements for actual journalism. Tons of Twittermill journalism just ends up being dead wrong, misinformed, or missing a ton of key context.
You could say any of these things about the NYT with a much higher degree of confidence. On Twitter, people are probably lying to me. NYT hacks are definitely lying to me.
It's not really lying. everyone views a subject differently.
so in order to get closer to the actual truth what you want is a massive variety of perspectives and opinions so one can actually synthesize this to get closer to the truth or at least a well-educated perspective on the subject.
which is what modern media gives to you.
versus the old guard who present things in a very specific way.
even the old news outlets try to out-compete each other for speed to press.
I personally think smart people are able to filter through a lot of information and synthesize the relevant.
it's also arguable that you get closer to the truth with the diversity of opinions about a subject on modern media and once again this is better for smart people to make up thier minds about something.
Most people are more interested in accuracy, context, analysis, and trustworthiness.
Sure, papers very occasionally advertise that they were the first to break a story, but this is a minuscule proportion of everything they publish, and it's not the kind of thing that people switch subscriptions over.
If you're a day trader of stocks then speed is king. But for nearly everyone else, it's not the main metric.
NYT readers are interested in full articles and vetted analysis, not a bunch of scattered information from unknown sources, even if they're more immediate.
All you're saying is you don't like NYT/WaPo because you don't read quality journalism.
This is precisely my point. NYT competes with WaPo. Not with Twitter. If Twitter stopped existing, you still wouldn't go to the NYT. Because it's a totally different product category.
I know you're trying to imply that Twitter is more advanced than the NYT, but that's simply not true. They're different products for different audiences.
Revenue at the NYT has grown between 8% and 16% yearly each year over the past 3 years. That's simply not what happens to a business that is in decline or being replaced.
But go ahead, believe in your personal narrative all you want that somehow Twitter is replacing the NYT, despite all economic evidence and usage data to the contrary.
it is more advanced in the simple sense that you get much more varied information, perspectives and viewpoints.
i.e. its more difficult to advance a specific narrative or agenda by the private equity owners on millions of people versus a handful of reporters who have to obey their editors
If people go to Twitter for their acute information needs instead of newyorktimes.com, then they most definitely are competitors.
What you're doing is containing NYT in a niche category of "information for people who believe journalists product high quality information". In this niche, your point would stand true; someone who believes legacy journalism produces accurate and unbiased information is unlikely to even consider twitter.
For the larger mass, its simply not true, and the above niche market is a constantly shrinking one.
Surely you jest.... You can not honesty believe that at this point with the number of factually challenged stories the NYT times has run over the last few year, which is not even accounting for their clearly partisan coverage in both "news" and opinion pieces.
I tend to agree twitter and NYT are not in competition, but I disagree that NYT is in any way more journalistic than twitter.
Just bid low. X ads work by bids on an audience. Audiences with low bids are extremely cheap.
E.g. reasonably targeted US audiences used to cost $1.50 or more per follow (I don't remember click rates), while random bottom of the barrel follows could be obtained for <4c (you'd end up with non-English speakers in third world countries with little on their profile)
That said, even "quality" audiences on Twitter are really and miss depending on what you try to achieve.
Amusing, you're one of the few remaining people who still buy this. Watch how his values go over the next few weeks.
For example, his PR has arranged a trip to the Gaza / Israel border next week, where he'll meet and shake hands with Benjamin Netanyahu, so then he can say "see? I love Jews, please big ad dollars, come back". This was not a trip arranged a month ahead, the way you normally do this. No, this was hastily arranged in the aftermath of the big ad 𝕏-odus from a week ago.
During the interview you're citing, I'm sure Elon believed he "values his values" over money. Totally. But then when Twitter topples down, and threatens to drag with it also Tesla and specifically his ownership of Tesla stock (his Tesla debt collateral is TSLA), then it gets "real". And suddenly he goes quiet, and forgets his values. This keeps happening, and he never learns apparently.
Let me put this in simpler meme terms, the way he would enjoy:
- Elon: "I'll say what I want to say, and if this results in losing money, so be it!"
> so then he can say "see? I love Jews, please big ad dollars, come back"
He may be playing nice to bring the ads back, sure (and no doubt he wants X generating a lot of revenue). But in your example what he's not doing is taking away anyone's freedom of speech in order to get the ad dollars back. He is trying to bring back the ads without eroding freedom of speech.
If what he does is start banning users who say anti-Semitic things to bring back the ad revenue, then you will be right.
Oh, so when he bans journalists for saying "he banned Elonjet", or reporting on Tesla whistleblowers... that's not banning free speech. When he banned Instagram and Mastodon links, when he banned (basically blocked from the timeline, blocked likes and replies) the Substack account... that's not banning free speech.
It's only banning free speech when he bans anti-Semites.
Wait I thought he was an anti-Semite that is why everyone hates him and why the advertisers left
Now we have to hate him because he is banning anti-Semites
I am soo confused, it is almost like narrative changes based on the time of day and it really has nothing to with Elon at all, but about control of narrative
> He may be playing nice to bring the ads back, sure (and no doubt he wants X generating a lot of revenue).
I love the consistency of these points. He either values principles or maybe money, which are interchangeable, and whatever one of those I’ve just thought of is better than the other.
With all the people he banned you still believe he actually cares about free speech?
Musk promise not to anyone not even the account the posted 5h4 location of his plane then he went and banned the account. And then went on a banning soirée of journaliste who are critical of him.
Musk is only for speech that isnt critical of him. If it is then he doenst hesitate censor them.
If you actually believe thst he's working to protect free speech. You are extremely ignorant of the facts and reality.
LinkedIn just to see what companies are working on or doing, what jobs are out there, etc. I don't really follow people/posts, just do my own searches.
LinkedIn is something you keep only to be seen by recruiters.
I don't really interact with anything there, but I keep an up-to-date profile and sometimes post some technical articles or tutorials. I put the some effort on those, but I don't care if anyone reads it. The purpose there is just to have some well-written technical articles under my name.
> If advertisers were getting results from their X ads, or possibly If you posted data that showed that ads on this platform were effective and produced results, you would be in an entirely different position.
> If your ads produce results, businesses would tell you they understand how difficult it is to completely eliminate hate on the platform.
> If they don't produce results, there is no reason for a big company to fuck around and find out that their ads showed up next to a hateful post.
> I can't tell you how many times I get Cheech ,(or is it Chong?) ads for CBD gummies. Shit I would never buy. ..
> On other platforms ads sometimes are eerily relevant to my interests.
> That never occurs on this platform
When asked if he ever advertised on X:
> Multiple of my portfolio companies have. And I always ask them to check. Without exception, all have said it doesn't give the same returns as other platforms
There's no/minimal targeting by X. Or at least weren't before Musk. It was all advertisers bidding. The granularity was good, but you still needed to figure out the audience and how much to bid yourself.
With large advertisers fleeing, you now get shit because it's cheap for third rate advertisers to bid peanuts for broad audiences their products aren't very relevant for.
It doesn't have to be "next to" a hate filled post. Also, it wasn't just ads next to racist/misogynist/etc. posts, it was Elon saying a racist and antisemitic post was "the truth." It was the owner of the whole platform saying that. Good targeting can't fix that.
one case is poor media reporting during a war, the other is a man literally agreeing with and supporting white supremacists and neo-nazis. NYT wasn't being antisemitic, but elon undoubtedly was
Look at the ads there now. Lots of bargain basement advertisers who probably don't gain from being associated with X but aren't hurt by it either, and who gain indirectly when quality advertisers fleeing because the bids on placements have gone through the floor.
103 comments
[ 0.29 ms ] story [ 172 ms ] threadhttps://web.archive.org/web/20231124231504/https://www.nytim...
CloudFlare is in the right. This is for privacy. No location info sent.
Just put the IPs on your hosts file, it's easy. https://dns.google/query?name=archive.today
41.77.143.21 archive.today
41.77.143.21 archive.is
41.77.143.21 archive.ph
While there try a hosts blocklist
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33937866
In particular the "that support flooding their country" part seems to have some articles missing, as such it could mean many things. I'd read 'their country' as meaning Israel in this context. I mean, if you're talking about Jewish people and you then use 'their country' the obvious implication is Israel.
As I said the entire thing is convoluted.
"Their country" -- turns out when people say "my country", they mean the country they live in. So "western Jewish populations" refers, in large part, to Jewish people in America who call themselves Americans, because that's what they are.
The ways that (truly monstrous) people want to destroy Israel is not by literally "flooding" it (normally I'd lol here but man, this is depressing) because then the Palestinians couldn't live there, but also because it's impossible.
Your interpretation of this post rests on American Jews identifying more strongly as Israelis than Americans (pretty problematic right there) and the feasibility of anyone lowering Israel below the level of the Mediterranean (Bond villain-level thinking here).
The guy who shot up Tree of Life synagogue (a couple of blocks away from where my brother and his partner live) was pushing the idea that Jewish people are helping migrant caravans over the US-Mexico border--a trope all over Gab and other antisemitic forums.
Let's just all stop giving these guys the benefit of the doubt here.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/27/us/synagogue-attack-suspe...
I'm not arguing with 'reality' I'm arguing, it seems, with multiple opinions. Just because a consensus opinion has been reached doesn't make that opinion a reality.
My read of it seems viable and another person here has reached the same conclusion.
https://nitter.net/elonmusk/status/1724908287471272299
@breakingbaht: "Okay. Jewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don't exactly like them too much. You want truth said to your face, there it is."
@elonmusk: "You have said the actual truth"
There's nothing defensible about this. Someone writes an intellectually lazy not-even-wrong racist rant, and Musk jumps in with validation and encouragement. It does not matter that there also happens to be some reasonable nuanced criticism that rant can be said to encompass - the original is still an overly broad racist rant that should be condemned by anyone interested in reasoned truth.
I wasn't defending the tweet, I was pointing out there's not a connection to the 'replacement theory'. It's bullshit. It's a fake connection.
I am not sure if you genuinely believe otherwise or think the rest of us are stupid enough that we might entertain doubts about this just because you keep saying it's not the case.
Like, I get that "replacement theory" and the related conspiracy theories that led to the Tree of Life Synagogue attack allege an active and ill-intentioned participation on the part of Jews in bringing in minorities, whereas the Tweet in question refers only to its authors perception that most Jews are liberal and woke, and is pointing out that many minorities in that camp are doing or saying things that many Jews interpret as bigoted towards them.
But given its blanket assumption about the views of most Jews and is allegation that "Jewish communties have been pushing...dialectical hatred against whites" and its use of the language "hordes of minorities that support flooding their country", I don't see why we should split hairs and refuse to draw some very plausible inferences about this Tweet --namely, that "replacement theory" a) was on the author's mind as he wrote it; b) that he endorses that conspiracy theory; c) that he wrote it knowing that anyone who is familiar with that conspiracy theory would recognize it here. His Tweet is just "replacement theory" with a false mustache and glasses.
I wonder what the parallel of visa/matercard/discover and consequently (paypal and stripe) would be because these services/cards are going to be the root of the parallel economy.
Having said that, knocking antisocial people off the mainstream and back into a digital hole seems like a win to me.
I feel like this is the lemon problem, where that group of people are mainly lemons. As more normal people move over, i feel like it will be more Signal (chat app) and less Mastodon/Keybase/Tor.
Nobody's dropping their NYT subscription and replacing it with Twitter/X, conversely nobody's looking for the NYT to replace what they get from Twitter/X.
Saying they're in competition is like saying The Olive Garden restaurant chain competes with 7-Eleven convenience stores. Sure you can buy food at both of them, but they're not in competition. They're totally different categories.
Modern media like Twitter and Reddit and HN and (dare I say) 4chan is where news breaks first.
By the time I see it on the NYT Ive already read about it on numerous other platforms and usually with better information because its written by people firsthand on the scene or people directly in the know.
Information moves at lightspeed.
Literally dont read the NYT or WaPo anymore. I like that they exist for the abstract idea that quality journalism exists but practically never use them.
So yes Twitter is absolutely a competitor, due to its immediacy and its massive userbase.
FIFY
so in order to get closer to the actual truth what you want is a massive variety of perspectives and opinions so one can actually synthesize this to get closer to the truth or at least a well-educated perspective on the subject.
which is what modern media gives to you.
versus the old guard who present things in a very specific way.
whoever gets you that information faster wins
even the old news outlets try to out-compete each other for speed to press.
I personally think smart people are able to filter through a lot of information and synthesize the relevant.
it's also arguable that you get closer to the truth with the diversity of opinions about a subject on modern media and once again this is better for smart people to make up thier minds about something.
That's just not how it works.
Most people are more interested in accuracy, context, analysis, and trustworthiness.
Sure, papers very occasionally advertise that they were the first to break a story, but this is a minuscule proportion of everything they publish, and it's not the kind of thing that people switch subscriptions over.
If you're a day trader of stocks then speed is king. But for nearly everyone else, it's not the main metric.
Lol imagine thinking you get this from big monopoly news media almost all of which are owned by private equity media conglomerates.
https://youtu.be/ksb3KD6DfSI?si=gc0FfF9WpdrKDmGW
NYT readers are interested in full articles and vetted analysis, not a bunch of scattered information from unknown sources, even if they're more immediate.
All you're saying is you don't like NYT/WaPo because you don't read quality journalism.
This is precisely my point. NYT competes with WaPo. Not with Twitter. If Twitter stopped existing, you still wouldn't go to the NYT. Because it's a totally different product category.
If Twitter implodes, people go to Threads/Mastodon/etc. They don't go to the NYT.
I'd agree with you on that
Revenue at the NYT has grown between 8% and 16% yearly each year over the past 3 years. That's simply not what happens to a business that is in decline or being replaced.
But go ahead, believe in your personal narrative all you want that somehow Twitter is replacing the NYT, despite all economic evidence and usage data to the contrary.
i.e. its more difficult to advance a specific narrative or agenda by the private equity owners on millions of people versus a handful of reporters who have to obey their editors
What you're doing is containing NYT in a niche category of "information for people who believe journalists product high quality information". In this niche, your point would stand true; someone who believes legacy journalism produces accurate and unbiased information is unlikely to even consider twitter.
For the larger mass, its simply not true, and the above niche market is a constantly shrinking one.
Surely you jest.... You can not honesty believe that at this point with the number of factually challenged stories the NYT times has run over the last few year, which is not even accounting for their clearly partisan coverage in both "news" and opinion pieces.
I tend to agree twitter and NYT are not in competition, but I disagree that NYT is in any way more journalistic than twitter.
The thought process that sees a conspiracy in every single thing that’s happening in the world today.
There are some things that would be willing to get into X ads or even tumbler or similar in areas that mainstream ad cos might deem brand unsafe..
I am guessing these ad slots could be bought at 1/10th the regular cost and even give some options like demographics, over 18, certain cities, etc.
Make the slots available with a disclaimer your ad may appear by anti-this and anti-that and cancelled / hate / porn - check box to continue..
I suppose it could start to auction and raise price one day - but for now just put ads in a line.
asking for a friend.
https://business.twitter.com/en/help/troubleshooting/bidding...
E.g. reasonably targeted US audiences used to cost $1.50 or more per follow (I don't remember click rates), while random bottom of the barrel follows could be obtained for <4c (you'd end up with non-English speakers in third world countries with little on their profile)
That said, even "quality" audiences on Twitter are really and miss depending on what you try to achieve.
He has values, and he values those over money.
For example, his PR has arranged a trip to the Gaza / Israel border next week, where he'll meet and shake hands with Benjamin Netanyahu, so then he can say "see? I love Jews, please big ad dollars, come back". This was not a trip arranged a month ahead, the way you normally do this. No, this was hastily arranged in the aftermath of the big ad 𝕏-odus from a week ago.
During the interview you're citing, I'm sure Elon believed he "values his values" over money. Totally. But then when Twitter topples down, and threatens to drag with it also Tesla and specifically his ownership of Tesla stock (his Tesla debt collateral is TSLA), then it gets "real". And suddenly he goes quiet, and forgets his values. This keeps happening, and he never learns apparently.
Let me put this in simpler meme terms, the way he would enjoy:
- Elon: "I'll say what I want to say, and if this results in losing money, so be it!"
- Big advertisers: *Pull out.*
- Elon: Wait. Not like this.
He may be playing nice to bring the ads back, sure (and no doubt he wants X generating a lot of revenue). But in your example what he's not doing is taking away anyone's freedom of speech in order to get the ad dollars back. He is trying to bring back the ads without eroding freedom of speech.
If what he does is start banning users who say anti-Semitic things to bring back the ad revenue, then you will be right.
It's only banning free speech when he bans anti-Semites.
How curious.
Now we have to hate him because he is banning anti-Semites
I am soo confused, it is almost like narrative changes based on the time of day and it really has nothing to with Elon at all, but about control of narrative
> He may be playing nice to bring the ads back, sure (and no doubt he wants X generating a lot of revenue).
I love the consistency of these points. He either values principles or maybe money, which are interchangeable, and whatever one of those I’ve just thought of is better than the other.
Musk promise not to anyone not even the account the posted 5h4 location of his plane then he went and banned the account. And then went on a banning soirée of journaliste who are critical of him.
Musk is only for speech that isnt critical of him. If it is then he doenst hesitate censor them.
If you actually believe thst he's working to protect free speech. You are extremely ignorant of the facts and reality.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/twitter-journalist-suspend-...
Good one.
You are joking right?
I feel bad for people who choose to waddle through ads.
I don't really interact with anything there, but I keep an up-to-date profile and sometimes post some technical articles or tutorials. I put the some effort on those, but I don't care if anyone reads it. The purpose there is just to have some well-written technical articles under my name.
> If advertisers were getting results from their X ads, or possibly If you posted data that showed that ads on this platform were effective and produced results, you would be in an entirely different position.
> If your ads produce results, businesses would tell you they understand how difficult it is to completely eliminate hate on the platform.
> If they don't produce results, there is no reason for a big company to fuck around and find out that their ads showed up next to a hateful post.
> I can't tell you how many times I get Cheech ,(or is it Chong?) ads for CBD gummies. Shit I would never buy. ..
> On other platforms ads sometimes are eerily relevant to my interests.
> That never occurs on this platform
When asked if he ever advertised on X:
> Multiple of my portfolio companies have. And I always ask them to check. Without exception, all have said it doesn't give the same returns as other platforms
https://x.com/mcuban/status/1727400271364669756
With large advertisers fleeing, you now get shit because it's cheap for third rate advertisers to bid peanuts for broad audiences their products aren't very relevant for.
Without functional moderation and a trustworthy brand there is nothing to keep it afloat.
I.e., where the lack of reputability is actually a benefit for their business / advertising goals?
If that goes on for only 3,213 more years, Musk is going to be in real trouble.