Yes it's curious, that - it's an interesting story (although the comments aren't always thoughtful and substantive). Perhaps an email to mods is in order?
No, it is politics. Apple stopped advertising on X over politics, not technical reasons. The Democrat-run media has successfully convinced a large number of highly conformist individuals that we've got another Hitler on our hands, and a lot of these people opine about their paranoia extensively on HN.
It's also a dupe. Doesn't matter if they were eventually flagged, there was already a bunch of views, upvotes, and discussion. Flagging after awhile is annoying, but also discussion devolves. It's not nothing tho. All is not lost. Stuff moves fast around here. And discussion continues there also as ppl follow the links.
> Musk clearly learned his lesson. Since then, he’s been lying low, out of the public eye, and refraining from any sort of controversial statements or actions. He barely even tweets anymore.
I honestly can’t understand how you think this might not be satire. Musk has been lying low, out of the public eye, avoiding controversy? Barely tweeting?
It's interesting to see Gruber repeatedly mocking Apple's CEO. I also find it curious that so many in the tech blog / news sphere can't stop denouncing everything to do with the new administration. To me it seems like a sort of signaling "I will not bend, I have integrity", when in fact they are just being ignorant.
What surprises me the most is the extreme black and white view of things. Like nothing good can come out of it if it is not from my party.
Anyway, let's enjoy our downvotes :-)
Exactly. Before Elon it was an echo chamber for the previous administration (policy wise) like Reddit and other social media companies. Try to say anything against DEI on Reddit and you get immediately suspended(at least on the technology subreddit)
If you are thinking of the stories of Foxconn worker suicides a few years ago that turned out to be a big nothing. Their suicide rates were lower than US factory workers of similar age.
It drew attention initially because they were reported as suicides at work whereas similar aged US factory workers that commit suicide usually do it at home. It turns out that Chinese workers who commit also usually do it at home, but in China workers at big factories like those of Foxconn often live in company owned housing.
I think they're referring to China's relaxed labor laws that permit the equivalent of slavery. To say nothing of the Uighurs, it's been long known that North Korean laborers are shipped there to work without pay in inhospitable and captive conditions: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68226271
The Foxconn incidents were overblown, but it absolutely highlights the cognitive dissonance in Apple's principles of operations. It really is quite funny watching people pretend to care about Tim Cook bending the knee when we've already watched him acquiesce to authoritarianism for market access. We always knew Apple's dependence on China was unhealthy, but America is too allergic to regulation to deter them.
Apple has offshored so many of their hardware jobs that it would be a challenge for them to not increase production in the USA. It's been decades of Apple knowing this behavior is wrong, and they're still addicted to China regardless. I award no points until they actually sort out their manufacturing partners without relying on authoritarian control.
Just remember. For every person like you who thinks they are righteous by boycotting Apple because they want to advertise on X, there is someone on the opposite side of the fence who now support Apple again.
The truly worst websites are usually only found with a .tor browser. If Apple started advertising on Stormfront I'll get concerned, but right now X has fantastic discussion for ML devs and shows me stuff like this: https://x.com/Brittymigs/status/1889708756851634439
Opponents probably aren't using the site. Or have a fervor for something else and misdirecting it towards X.
no. You aren't even on topic. Aren't coders supposed to be smart? You can't even correctly model me, god forbid you try to understand your political opponents.
Am I betting on a red 2028? If people like you keep at it, I will.
Opinion reversals always seem to be off-limits in the US. You have to follow the daily marching orders, keep your head down and never mention history.
I suppose that the censorship system that had been set up by the Democrats is now available to the new rulers. People have warned against this for years.
> I think it boils down to the fact that intelligent, curious discussion on topics like this can’t be held on the internet.
They definitely can be. Usually, moderators dont want to deal with the shit slinging that comes with them though, and many intelligent people are too sensitive to allow bigotry and hateful comments to be allowed to be hosted.
I miss the old days where anything goes, and if you don't like it just close the browser. Better than censorship and sanitization.
eh, we've been getting super-political when the discussions aligned with the establishment. This is tech-bros kissing the ring. We are living in the unfortunate timeline where one waits for China to save the day.
Companies that have no political ideologies except to make as much money as they can, resume doing <insert whatever self serving behavior it is> the minute it’s profitable to do so.
It was profitable to do so a year ago, it was simply dangerous politically. Now given Trump is in office and aligned with Musk, it’s politically beneficial.
If an activity is profitable but the government can prosecute you for taking place in that activity, there in no correlation. That’s the point.
Advertising was dangerous because there was a perception that the previous US government would politically prosecute anyone who opposed them. Companies advertising on X, and hence supporting opposition such as Musk, would fall into this category.
Apple isn’t following the law right now either. They just brought TikTok back to the App Store based on Trump’s promises. But it is still breaking the law.
I wonder of all the people who read this comment and also drove today, what percentage violated speeding laws.
The TikTok law was meant to force divesture to a US company. The Supreme Court ruled on the legality of it at the very last minute, so there is broad bipartisan support for more time to find an acquirer, including Biden saying he won't enforce it on the last day in office.
They know a lot of Americans depend on it for livelihood and entertainment.
They advertised on Twitter before Musk bought it, which implies it was profitable. The platform is doing better than ever, so we can assume it’s still profitable today.
I don’t have all the metrics handy but I know traffic is constantly growing and at an all time high[0].
Revenue is down with the advertisers leaving but costs are down so much, I think it’s recently profitable or will be soon? And with advertising coming back on top of the new cost structure, it should be a cash cow.
The corollary is that advertising on X is now profitable for Apple. Which is useful information.
Of course companies put money before political ideology, as a public company, it can be considered an obligation to their shareholders. The part that matters is that their customers may have political ideologies, and it is important for a company to match the ideologies of the customers who make them the most money, at least in appearance.
There should be a law in place whereby if you a prove a company was engaged in profitable advertising or activities and stopped doing those activities in response to political stances the company can be prosecuted.
Not sure where this would fit into the law though something like this would certainly curtail cancel culture like activity.
Could a be a “facts and circumstances” type of legislation similar to the IRS. Many IRS rules go back to the “facts and circumstances” of a particular case to evaluate all the nuances relating to it.
I'm still not clear why you think this would be a good idea. Obviously you have opinions on what is "legitimate" in these situations. Can you explain more about this and how it wouldn't be a first ammendment violation to create such a law?
What "facts and circumstances" are we interested in? Your original post mentioned ending business relationships due to political stances. Did you mean the political stance of the advertisers, the platform hosting ads, some third party or parties, a combination of the above, or something I've missed?
The original comment by gnabgib was flagged after a while, so I will post it again for those who come later. I think this comment will be flagged soon. I don’t know why some people don’t want this news to spread.
This site is not about just any news anyone wants to hear about, there is a focus behind it. And honestly the reason I frequent this website is specifically because political garbage is usually down voted, flagged or removed fairly quickly as it typically just causes flame wars with no actual actionable things and nothing of value is learned from it.
Tagging / @mentions don't trigger anything unless a mod happens to see it (which is rare / unlikely, given the volume of posts every day). However, you can email the staff: hn@ycombinator.com.
Be sure to include your reasoning for what is wrong with or unfair about the tag and why the story warrants special treatment.
It’s often cited that Twitter/X lost 80% of its value since Musk took over. Is this possible to confirm? If it’s private now, are there ways to judge its success or estimate its value?
Pre-Aquisition Twitter
$5 billion revenue
$682 million EBITDA
2024 X
$2.7 billion revenue
$1.25 billion EBITDA
Last week Alwaleed bin Talal a longtime Twitter and X investor said his holdings have held value after the acquisition and he considers it in the process of doubling. Some banks also reported selling their debt in 2024 for 97 cents on the dollar.
While this is true, (and I don't want to try to be politically neutral here), if we look at Elon's enormous increase in power and also significant increase in wealth, it would definately be positive ROI for him.
He went through a lot of stress thought being leveraged in the stock market crash.
They left because of fears about reputation damage, but since no one cares about reputations right now, there’s nothing to fear anymore. Might as well pick up a few additional sales.
Cook is a smart man. Showed up at Trump's inauguration after paying $1 million. Advertising back on X so they have some leverage to prevent damaging tariffs and sanctions that would impact Apple's manufacturing in China.
128 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 206 ms ] thread(41 points, 23 hours ago, 48 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43032112
Judging by the quality of comments here and in the linked submissions, it's a good thing.
* By "bad" I mean bad for HN: low-substance, flamey, high-indignation, high-snark. Not what this site is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Is this satire? I honestly can’t tell.
You mean, like, the poster you're responding to? That's their M.O.
It drew attention initially because they were reported as suicides at work whereas similar aged US factory workers that commit suicide usually do it at home. It turns out that Chinese workers who commit also usually do it at home, but in China workers at big factories like those of Foxconn often live in company owned housing.
The Foxconn incidents were overblown, but it absolutely highlights the cognitive dissonance in Apple's principles of operations. It really is quite funny watching people pretend to care about Tim Cook bending the knee when we've already watched him acquiesce to authoritarianism for market access. We always knew Apple's dependence on China was unhealthy, but America is too allergic to regulation to deter them.
The truly worst websites are usually only found with a .tor browser. If Apple started advertising on Stormfront I'll get concerned, but right now X has fantastic discussion for ML devs and shows me stuff like this: https://x.com/Brittymigs/status/1889708756851634439
Opponents probably aren't using the site. Or have a fervor for something else and misdirecting it towards X.
Not allowed to have an alternate opinion anymore hey ?
It's interesting to me how the whole MAGA / Elon absolute "free speech" has now become the opposite of what it started out to be in favor of :)
Am I betting on a red 2028? If people like you keep at it, I will.
Be better.
It’s about buying support from Musk who is right now the CEO in Chief.
I suppose that the censorship system that had been set up by the Democrats is now available to the new rulers. People have warned against this for years.
Even on HN, the comments on the previous threads, and already in this thread too, are getting downvoted and flagged (mine will soon follow, I’m sure).
Politics is an internet trigger. It can draw out the worst in even the most otherwise civil people.
They definitely can be. Usually, moderators dont want to deal with the shit slinging that comes with them though, and many intelligent people are too sensitive to allow bigotry and hateful comments to be allowed to be hosted.
I miss the old days where anything goes, and if you don't like it just close the browser. Better than censorship and sanitization.
> And in the first six months of this year, the social network has suspended 5.3 million accounts, compared to 1.6 million in the first half of 2022
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-mus...
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/16/free-speech-experts-real...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/15/elon-m...
https://restofworld.org/2023/elon-musk-twitter-government-or...
There, I fixed the headlines for you.
That seems to be the truth.
Explain? Because if it was politically dangerous, it automatically means it wasn’t profitable.
Advertising was dangerous because there was a perception that the previous US government would politically prosecute anyone who opposed them. Companies advertising on X, and hence supporting opposition such as Musk, would fall into this category.
Seriously though, I certainly don’t want my companies to have political ideologies. Follow the law, be good to customers and serve everyone.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/technology/tiktok-apple-g...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/apple-google-tiktok-app...
https://www.theverge.com/news/612768/tiktok-app-store-apple-...
The TikTok law was meant to force divesture to a US company. The Supreme Court ruled on the legality of it at the very last minute, so there is broad bipartisan support for more time to find an acquirer, including Biden saying he won't enforce it on the last day in office.
They know a lot of Americans depend on it for livelihood and entertainment.
> They know a lot of Americans depend on it for livelihood and entertainment.
Yes because President Musk has showed real concerns about putting people out of work
The only reason they left was politics.
By which metric? Even Elon has admitted they're not making money.
Revenue is down with the advertisers leaving but costs are down so much, I think it’s recently profitable or will be soon? And with advertising coming back on top of the new cost structure, it should be a cash cow.
[0] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1821581350975189151?s=46
No that's not what Elon said and the tweet he was replying to is a nobody with zero data.
[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-antisemitic-comments-...
Of course companies put money before political ideology, as a public company, it can be considered an obligation to their shareholders. The part that matters is that their customers may have political ideologies, and it is important for a company to match the ideologies of the customers who make them the most money, at least in appearance.
Not sure where this would fit into the law though something like this would certainly curtail cancel culture like activity.
Could a be a “facts and circumstances” type of legislation similar to the IRS. Many IRS rules go back to the “facts and circumstances” of a particular case to evaluate all the nuances relating to it.
What "facts and circumstances" are we interested in? Your original post mentioned ending business relationships due to political stances. Did you mean the political stance of the advertisers, the platform hosting ads, some third party or parties, a combination of the above, or something I've missed?
Look up “no duty to deal”.
Twitter does, though.
Two previous discussions were flagged as well:
[1] Apple Resumes Advertising on X | 44 points by greyadept 23 hours ago | 49 comments | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43032112
[2] Apple is once again advertising on X, more than a year after stopping all ads | 76 points by ksec 1 day ago | 38 comments | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43031493
Be sure to include your reasoning for what is wrong with or unfair about the tag and why the story warrants special treatment.
2024 X $2.7 billion revenue $1.25 billion EBITDA
Last week Alwaleed bin Talal a longtime Twitter and X investor said his holdings have held value after the acquisition and he considers it in the process of doubling. Some banks also reported selling their debt in 2024 for 97 cents on the dollar.
Interview: https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1887210068485009599
https://www.semafor.com/article/02/07/2025/musks-x-doubled-i...
He went through a lot of stress thought being leveraged in the stock market crash.
Economic war is coming between the EU and US companies once Trump imposes tariffs.
And Apple needs Trump and Musk as allies rather than enemies.