I got curious about just how bad said Nazi content is, and managed to find an article with some screenshots: https://nypost.com/2023/08/17/x-suspends-pro-hitler-account-after-brands-paused-ads/
Spoiler: very Nazi.
So it’s not just Nazi-compatible ideas. It’s straight out Nazi symbolism.
I really don’t get these people - even if you believe the Nazis were right, you know they are the most hated historical faction in the world. Wouldn’t it be better to advocate their ideas without explicitly associating yourself with them, just to avoid the (completely justified) knee-jerk reaction?
They want the negative reaction. They thrive on being hated. Similar with some of the worst Internet trolls. The hatred validates them.
Your link just shows the blinking X and “someone ‘paused’ (e.g stopped) doing business” with “x”.
Or am I missing something?
Ignore the video, scroll down through the article.
The photos are there — you might have to scroll a bit
Holy shit!
Awful but lawful the article says towards the end.
It’s not lawful in very many countries
Wouldn’t it be better to advocate their ideas without explicitly associating yourself with them, just to avoid the (completely justified) knee-jerk reaction?
I don’t think raising swastika flags counts as “without explicitly associating yourself with them”.
You’re suggesting that Nazi’s use their famous critical thinking skills to understand that 99% of the world hates them and their ideology?
Being evil is one thing, but there is no excuse for being stupid.
Has there ever been any intelligent right-wing movements? Pretty much every white supremacist has the IQ of a fairly cool room. They claim to be the superior race, while providing absolutely no evidence of this.
Yes, lots of them. You can’t think of them because they got what they wanted without you noticing it.
He wanted free speech with no censorship. I get it, but he also wants to make a profit. So this is was happens, I hope him and the almighty shareholders are ok with it.
He never cared about free speech, he only cared about HIS free speech
Well - 79% of ‘the almighty shareholders’ is Elon Musk, and I somehow get the impression that as long as he is convinced that he’s doing exactly the right things nothing will change. The next biggest stakeholders are Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal (5.7%), Oracle founder Larry Ellison (3.0%), Jack Dorsey (3.0%), Sequoia Capital (2.4%), and Vy Capital (2.1%) - and they’ve all been publicly silent on the topic of twitter self destruction - I think they’ve transitioned into train-wreck mode where they are in such disbelief about what they are witnessing that they aren’t able to articulate opinions about it.
Maybe they are all shorting it big in their alt accounts because they know that the SEC fines will be trivial next to the money they will make. Also, that not a single one of them would see the inside of a court room.
Pretty sure you can’t short a private company. It has to be traded on a public exchange to short sell it.
I didn’t realize that they delisted it after he bought it.
Dorsey agrees with Musk on this stuff. He has said before that he didn’t want to ban Trump after J6 and that he was against banning Nazi accounts, but did it because it was a public company, and they kinda had to.
Now he and his buddies are trying to roll out their own social media protocol, bluesky, which is built specifically to not allow Nazis to be banned.
It seems very charitable to say he sincerly cares about free speech given his hindering and sliencing of others.
I am still entirely convinced that the only reason he bought Twitter in the first place is because of this: https://www.businessinsider.com/student-who-tracks-elon-musk-jet-launching-own-website-2023-2
Personally I think he was attempting a pump and dump and got caught out by the market downturn that hit just after he brought in.
He didn’t want any of that.
He wants free speech only if he agrees with it.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
removed by mod
That was always the point. He tried to shame Twitter into giving the far-right a credible platform and in the process, accidentally comitted to buying the site.
Everything else has just been him awkwardly trying to minimise his financial losses and hide that he’s actually a dumbfuck.
Wrestle with pigs, get covered in shit, or something like that.
Can’t even block nazis.
Couldn’t block them in real life in the 30s and 40s, so he’s just being true to history.
- Buy unprofitable application
- Make a series of incredibly shit business decisions
- It’s now less profitable than before.
- ???
- ???
- Profit
I’ve one the steps is, “use the letter X SOMEHOW, so people won’t laugh at you and will realize you are so cool finally”
Last step is selling it to yahoo!
Nah, it’s selling to Yahoo, then getting your parent company acquired by Verizon, then having Verizon spin your parent company off again.
Hold on, maybe I’ve figured it out. Endless magical profits, here I come!
Step 4. Be ultra-wealthy. (Bonus for not paying taxes.) Step 5. Do anything. (Bonus for pretending it’s profitable.)
And no one but Musk is the least bit surprised by the catastrophic failure of Twitter.
If you’re advertising on Twitter in 2023 and your target audience isn’t Nazis, what are you doing? 😅
But but but there were good people on both sides Disney!
I wish they hadn’t change the name. It was much easier to keep bullshit I do not care about out of my newsfeed when it was called twitter.
Just keep calling it Twitter and campaign for other people to do the same.
Set a filter for capital ’ X ’ (with a space on either side) as well as ’ X.’ (left space + period)
Eh, it’s not that simple… There’s a windowing system on Linux, and an old punk band from LA, and a whole generation…
It’s not a perfect solution, no, but it’s a solution.
Personally, none of those would hold me back, but to each their own.
Running away from the X windowing system might not be that bad though 😉
But for some stupid reason, most Linux users have nvidia, which doesn’t play well with Wayland (or X, for that matter…)
Unix Blasphemy!!
I do love X though (not the Twitter rebrand - Motif for life!!). A simple X program is/was so portable, but I guess not many people care anymore.
Not to mention the phrase, X marks the spot.
Also, how am I going to look for MDMA pills in the late 90s US?
I still deadname it and call it Twitter. I refuse to call it X.
Lunatics always show up in my For You feed on Twitter. I always tag the company with a screenshot of the offending content with the advertisement. Lately it’s been weird advertisements. Shitty gambling apps, religious and personal accounts promoting their personal brand. So they likely don’t care.
Also I’ll never call Twitter anything but Twitter.
I exclusively am subscribed to porn accounts, so I find it super weird when right ring idiots show up in my feed.
That’s what I use Twitter for too but what intrudes my feed is mostly memes and cat videos. While it may be true my experience however isn’t that they’re pushing right wing content to everyone because I’m not seeing it.
How do you know those aren’t far-right cats?
Also I’ll never call Twitter anything but Twitter.
I don’t know, I think there’s room for appropriate change here;
- Twater
- Twit’er
- Twixlers
I admit, my suggestions could use more help, but surely we must admit they’ve devolved from Twitter!?
Xittter with the x using ‘sh’ pronunciation
You just accidentally named 3 mastodon instances.
Slap a .moe or .xyz or a .social and you’re federatin baby
Moe moe, kyun~
Sorry, wrong subreddit, err, community.
I’m surprised it took this long.
Why do brands care so much what their ads appear next to? Its not like people associate the ads with the content.
deleted by creator
But for example, advertisers avoid youtube videos that use slur words, or other non advertisers friendly topics. Its not like they stop advertising on youtube just because a video that said fuck exists. So who the hell associates the ad before the video to the video itself?
But, as you said, advertisers avoid that sort of content. They’re willing to still put the ads on YouTube because they know they can avoid their ads being shown next to certain topics.
If you see
buy Pepsi
Insert racial slur
That’s not going to give you good associations with the brand
If the video itself advertises you - yeah, i absolutely see that. If its just one of those ads youtube slaps before the video starts - nope, i cant see it.
Years ago I worked for a company that had ads appear on Breitbart. Retargeted display, not a direct buy on the site. People would screenshot the ads and light up our Twitter complaining we were directly supporting hate speech etc, so we asked our demand partner to stop buying there to avoid negative engagement on our social. If your site gets a critical mass of negative attention brands can shut down your ability to be commercially viable, and effectively censor the content in a way.
that’s still not “censoring”, not even “effectively”.
