Elon Musk, the owner of X, criticized advertisers with expletives on Wednesday at The New York Times’s DealBook Summit.

  • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    -881 year ago

    What advertisers are doing isn’t capitalism it’s collusion to manipulate the market.

      • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        -861 year ago

        Obviously you don’t understand capitalism and your just going off what people who want communism and socialism are saying.

        • cheesepotatoes
          link
          fedilink
          491 year ago

          Please explain to me how advertisers exercising their agency in choosing who to advertise with is “communism” or “socialism”.

          • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            -521 year ago

            When I mentioned communism and socialism I was pointing to the mischaracterization of capitalism. Capitalism is just the free and open market and when companies collude together to manipulate the market that’s not capitalism. Capitalism has built in rules against market manipulation and monopolies unfortunately that requires the government to do it’s job to enforce it, which it’s been doing a piss poor job of.

            • @SPRUNT@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              271 year ago

              What evidence is there that the companies are colluding? Are there communication logs where they all conversed and decided to pull ads? Is there any evidence at all that the companies had any interaction with each other about this and made a unifying decision to cancel their ads?

              Collusion requires entities to work together to achieve a mutual goal. Otherwise, it’s just a coincidence of timing.

              • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                -281 year ago

                At the moment it’s speculation, but from past events involving these same companies we’ve witnessed collusion.

                • @SPRUNT@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  91 year ago

                  What past events with which companies?
                  And who is this “we” you’re referring to? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

                  So far you’ve admitted to speculating on ethereal events and are using that as your basis for claiming foul play while providing no evidence for any of it.

                  • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -81 year ago

                    There has been multiple government hearings with Facebook, Apple, Google involving collusion. Also, look at the targeted takedown of Parlor by Amazon, Google, and Apple when it was a threat to the old twitter.

            • @SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              261 year ago

              Capitalism has built in rules against market manipulation and monopolies

              It most assuredly does not. Addressing these externalities is the responsibility of government.

              • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                -241 year ago

                The fact that it requires a free and open market are the rules and since it’s a component of the government the government has to make sure the system is free and open.

                  • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -251 year ago

                    No, capitalism is a component of the government. The point is to get the government out of twitter which records have shown the government was in twitter prior to Elon’s takeover.

                  • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -191 year ago

                    Unfortunately when you involve the government it’s always a matter of threat. But, the government involvement should stop at making sure everyone is playing a far equal and fair game.

            • @Fedizen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              8
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I think you might be having difficulty grasping the idea that people have marketing budgets and if say the ceo of a company you advertise on very publicly endorses hate speech it does create a brand management problem.

              You want your products to not be associated with things like, say, racism, which are kind of “yucky” to a lot of people.

              As a result you might refocus spending. If a bunch of people do this at once this doesn’t mean there’s collusion. For example, during a thunderstorm you might see less people outside. This isn’t because they all colluding - people don’t like being struck by lightning. Similarly, companies don’t want their brands to be “yucky” to the average consumer and often its just a matter of moving the ad spending to another platform without the baggage.

              You could ONLY limit this effect by banning advertising entirely.

              • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                -21 year ago

                Yes you’re right about public image and a company wanting to preserve it. And I might be a little hyperbolic about what I’m saying. But really if it was just public image along with their ads, they would delete/(stop using) all of their accounts to show that they didn’t want anything to do with Twitter as long as they had hateful content on there.

                • @Fedizen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  That doesn’t follow. Diverting ad spending is very different than closing feedback channels. For one, its likely to be handled by different departments in most companies and marketing budgets are likely to be far higher and more contentious than like micromanaging a social media handler.

          • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            -151 year ago

            I’m not conflating the two I’m simply saying the people that have an issue or misunderstanding and capitalism usage fall in either camp.

          • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            -201 year ago

            Government regulations. Capitalism is a component of the government so it should take government action to enforce it.

            • @frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              111 year ago

              Really? Because I’ve been repeatedly told by libertarian types (not socialists or communists) that any government regulation is not capitalism.

              You’re free to disagree with them, but then I’m going to ask what your definition of capitalism is that assumes this regulation (not just allowing it, but mandating it).

              • @SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                . Because I’ve been repeatedly told by libertarian types (not socialists or communists) that any government regulation is not capitalism

                Found your problem. That’s like asking flat earthers about gravity. They may think it exists but their concept of it is a fiction meant to align to their worldview.

                • @frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  31 year ago

                  Musk himself tends to identify with libertarianism; we can still critique him from his own standards without accepting them outright.

              • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                -101 year ago

                No matter the system you need some level of regulation otherwise it’s just anarchy. What you want is a balanced regulation that not overbearing and keeps thing running smoothly.

                • @aesthelete@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  91 year ago

                  WTF regulation would exist to possibly prevent a corporate boycott of X ads anyway?

                  “We hereby mandate that you buy ads on Xitter!”

                  That’s your version of the one true capitalism? GTFOH

                  • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -101 year ago

                    There is already laws on the books for collusion, and if they have been founded to have colluded to manipulate a company, those law apply to them

                  • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -71 year ago

                    I don’t fall into teams and I’m not part of a cult I’m looking at the big picture.

        • @SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          131 year ago

          I’m entirely pro-capitalism. Why should the free market not be allowed to act here?

          • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            -281 year ago

            In this context if they disagree so much they should just leave the platform and then it would fall under capitalism. What they want is to stay on the platform and dictate how it should be run and if they don’t get their way they make threats and ultimatums, which is a form of manipulation, I.e anti-capitalism.

            • @SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              17
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s not manipulation to say “we’re leaving because you did this thing and won’t be back until you don’t do this thing.” This is simply the market forces articulating their preferences.

              If I stop buying a company’s products because I disagree with the direction it’s going, I am voting with my wallet, not manipulating the company.

              • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                -191 year ago

                Yes vote with your wallet and leave, but don’t bring up false information to try and get others to leave, don’t use subsidiary companies, you own to lie and badmouth, when you leaving didn’t change the companies stance.

                • @SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  121 year ago

                  don’t bring up false information

                  Can you cite any examples of the above happening?

                  don’t use subsidiary companies, you own to lie and badmouth,

                  And explain what this means?

                  • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -131 year ago

                    Media Matters stated that ads were showing up beside questionable content, which was proven to be them gaming the system to get that to happen. Disney, Amazon, Paramount owns a large amount of media companies that are smearing the website.

      • @Djad2410@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        -261 year ago

        I simply made a claim to why something is happening whether or not is true is yet to be proven but that doesn’t mean it’s not a possibility. These companies want a hand in how the company is run and if they’re not getting what they want them calling each other up to coordinate an ads pull is a tool in their toolbox.