“It’s whatever amount is enough to stay off the naughty list,” says ad executive.
See full article...
See full article...
Big brands are spending small sums on X to stay out of Musk’s crosshairs
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Wouldn't that be "extortion"? Blackmail is a threat to reveal private information, extortion is a threat of violence or other aggressive action (property damage, etc).
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
I've found the most pathetic wimps end up being bullies sidekicks.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
It turns out that a frog in real life will try to leave the pot when it gets too hot. However, many American frogs have convinced themselves that Pot Warming is a hoax by liberal frogs and that the best thing to do is reach out and turn up the burner.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Very much so - Corporations don't have principles because they're not a person. As a hive mind of Shareholders + Board, they can simulate or mimic the choices that an individual would make but they're ultimately just machines that exist only to generate profits.
Amongst humans, those who have taken a stand for their principles over their existence are exceptional. Even the moderately "good" boards and C suites will simply tread water until the direction of the current makes a choice unavoidable.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Toward the end of Twitter, it had become pretty much the only place to get current information about many government agencies, and most emergency services. Facebook had once been there, but Twitter beat them out a long time ago for near-real-time stuff. For a while after the takeover, that changed a little, with more info available from agency web sites. I would be totally unsurprised at seeing agencies (federal and otherwise) being forced by the current situation (King Donald and his Prime Minister Elon, with no regard
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Upvote
-18
(1
/
-19)
This.
I dunno why. but this is the truth right now
And it does not help that in all the public spaces where we discuss this stuff, we are not "allowed" to discuss the solutions
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
History shows us the only workable solutions and in my anecdotal experience people are coming around to accepting that those historical solutions may not be as morally ambiguous as we once thought.
We all so desperately want a world without violence that we begin to deny the role of violence in ensuring that the people who really want violence can never get into power.
People are starting to wake up to the notion that the corrupt have taken away our ability to hold them accountable via the courts.
History shows that there is only one way once all other forms of accountability have been undermined.
One way. One.
And we all know damn well what it is.
Upvote
11
(13
/
-2)
Being obsequious to bullies is not pragmatic, its short sighted. Lots of short sighted choices get misidentified like that.
Pragmatic: "dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations."
It is neither sensible nor realistic to believe that capitulation to this sort of pressure will improve your position or end well for you.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Welp, I'll now be boycotting any brand I see advertised on X.
Caving to this thug is ridiculous.
Caving to this thug is ridiculous.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Low key kinda want a list of big companies paying protection money to X so I can boycott them myself
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
To quote a famous tweet:
"Violence isn't the answer! The answer is checks history book oh, oh no!"
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
The bullying started with just labor as the target, and gradually moved up the food chain. Until you get where we are now, the richest bullying everyone else. This is end-stage capitalism.
The whole process was warned about over and over, with all the mid-level bullies pooh-poohing and throwing their weight behind the bigger bullies. The systemic collapse is horrifying, but the mid-level bullies getting shat on does not make me sad in the slightest. Most of these "victimized ad execs" are no better than Musk. Most of them would love to be in Musk's shoes, bullying everyone. The main difference between them and Musk is that Musk actually won.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
It's disheartening that two of the densest people on the planet, Trump and Musk, have so much influence. Neither one can form coherent sentences yet can easily wreak havoc on any business they feel like.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
There's no end to capitalism here.
(Take whichever sense of "no end" you'd like here: it remains true.)
Even if one envisions a sort of "pure" capitalism (anarcho-capitalism, perhaps? "true" free-market capitalism?) it's certainly not ended here, it's just an engagement with the concurrent political system, and a refinement away from that "pure" structure into a still-capitalist system, just a more specific term—perhaps that's what you meant with "market capitalism" being over?
After all, Russia is capitalist, despite any proclamations to the contrary—after all, we have terms like "crony capitalism", and oligarchs have power because of their accrual of power via capital
The power Musk has is due to his accrual of capital, after all (to massively oversimplify things, I admit). He's currently wielding it almost any venue we can find as a means to consolidate his positions. But it's still being wielded against a market which chooses whether to accede to his demands or not. Hypothetically if enough of them refused, this might not actually go down the path it seems to be so inevitably hurtling toward.
It often seems like, on some level, we've diluted the sense of "capitalism" down to "business, and people buy stuff which determines what happens economically", or a vague sense of "freedom", as if capitalism is the only economic system under which those things occur when it very much isn't.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
Instead of caving to the Regime, these ad wizards could put funds toward fighting the forces subjugating them. They have the skills to boost the appeal and reach of all the excellent anti-fascist journalism out there, after all. But that would require forethought. And a soul.
It's a shame that, out here in reality, ad execs so craven and venal.
It's a shame that, out here in reality, ad execs so craven and venal.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
For now. To put it simply: we're in the "F Around" phase.
It's unclear what will happen when we enter the "Find Out" phase. (Or even when we'll enter it.) They're "winning" because, right now, voters aren't really feeling the effects. Some are (obviously people who work for the government, and people who work for companies whose contracts got stopped are), but the majority of Americans aren't.
Once those effects start being felt - well, things will get ... interesting. And I don't know how things will go. Maybe they'll keep "winning." But, ultimately, if by age for no other reason, Trump is a lame duck and the younger Republicans must know that, eventually, they'll face elections where they can't rely on Trump or his supporters.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
I think that might be difficult. Ars Technica is a Conde Nast outfit....and Conde Nast pays X for ads.
A simpler approach is to just leave X, and tell everyone you know to leave X.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
I suspect a lot of people don't.
It's not enough to remove the oligarchs from power, you have to destroy their legacy so thoroughly that you don't have a bunch of dumbasses five generations later claiming it's their heritage.
Upvote
12
(13
/
-1)
VelvetGlove
Ars Tribunus Militum
We're seeing the argument against anarchy play out before our eyes in real time. Anarcho-capitalism will inevitably develop into a monopolist system. Only a sufficiently powerful government that is not beholden to financial interests is capable of sustaining a free-market capitalist system.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
VelvetGlove
Ars Tribunus Militum
Nice business you got there. It would be a real shame if the DoJ were to investigate you for DEI violations, wouldn't it? Not to worry, just send me some advertising money and I can make your federal problems disappear.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
The worst part of it all is I only know a handful of people who voted for this. Everyone else was immensely smarter and voted to not let this happen - because we all knew this would happen.
Last edited:
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I was thinking "shakedown" myself, i.e. "Nice brand you got, be a shame if anything happened to it".
Edit: Ninja'd all over da place.
Last edited:
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Musk is a self declared free speech absolutist. That does not seem to include the freedom not to speak.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
And how will you know which brands those are without being on X yourself, making it a better place for advertising?
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Despicable cowards. Spineless jellyfish. Boot licking backstabbing snakes the lot of them
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Nothing the reich right loves to deny more than freedom of association
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
But meanwhile nearly everyone stays on the platform, even those that oppose Musk, because it's their "brand", or because it's expected. Cowards, or people that don't give a shit, pick one or two.
All I can do is not read it, or use it (not that posting on it has ever been a temptation).
All I can do is not read it, or use it (not that posting on it has ever been a temptation).
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)