News Walt Disney World and other major Disney accounts stop posting on social media platform X

[James Alucobond]

You just did.

Too many recent Disney movies feel like they are focus-grouped to the point of blandness to ensure they don't cause offense, don't have an agenda beyond inclusiveness[1], but do create maximal branding opportunities. As such, they're dull as dishwater and the plots feel design by committee.

Compare Tangled, Moana, and Frozen, all of which were pretty solidly unoffensive to the modern roster, an the main difference is those older movies are basically fun.

[1] which is not, and should not be a dirty word

I honestly think that in the case of the remakes in particular, they have no raison d'être in the first place, so all of the ordinarily minor alterations are magnified. Many of the changes are undeniably made with an eye toward modern sensitivities and inclusion—the producers and directors have explicitly said as much in several instances. In that sense, I suppose it can come off as contrived, but it's also being blown out of proportion by the cultural moment; after all, operas and musicals have been making similar tweaks between productions for ages.

 

[Brian]

I look forward to Disney and all the other companies pulling their ads off Meta's platforms.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Nothing more than anyone else, it's just Disney has become the punching bag due to multiple other factors (populist politics being a big one).

But I'd also remind everyone, Disney is a global brand, and not just American.

As the global box office has also been weak for Disney, I would have to agree with @Stripes that the "political boycott" some American's may be doing against Disney is NOT the biggest or really pressing factor impacting their performance at the box office, I would agree there are a myriad of other factors WAY ahead of any sort of political nonsense boycott.

I would point out the timing is remarkably suspicious.

Post it notes

Wrong. Romy and Michelle make those.

 

[Figgy1]

Wrong. Romy and Michelle make those.

 

[Andrew C]

Romy and Michelle make those

Classic

 

[MrPromey]

Is there a scenario in which Elon still owns X and Disney resumes posting or advertising?

Maybe if he voluntarily closes his own account on the platform.

Honestly, that would probably do the man a world of good in general if his ego would let him.

 

[Prince-1]

Honestly, that would probably do the man a world of good in general if his ego would let him.

Which is why this will never happen.

 

[Ayla]

Maybe if he voluntarily closes his own account on the platform.

Honestly, that would probably do the man a world of good in general if his ego would let him.

Even if he did close his current account, it doesn't mean he wouldn't use multiple burner accounts. The man is far too egotistical and narcissistic to shut his obnoxious mouth.

 

[Brian]

Even if he did close his current account, it doesn't mean he wouldn't use multiple burner accounts. The man is far too egotistical and narcissistic to shut his obnoxious mouth.

Buy your own Twitter if you don't like it. Or as a cheaper option, you can even mute him.

That said, the man spent $44 billion on a social media platform. He should be allowed to post whatever he damn well pleases on it.

 

[Prince-1]

I'm blocked from posting in the Reedy Creek thread. That's not an anecdote. I have to assume the same thing happened to most of the forum patrons who supported the state legislature because overnight, the thread became an echo chamber and that point of view disappeared completely.

So no proof then that someone on the other side of the political aisle tattled on you. Perhaps the mods saw whatever you wrote that obviously broke the rules and decided to put you in time out. Happens to a lot of people regardless of their political leanings.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I'm blocked from posting in the Reedy Creek thread. That's not an anecdote. I have to assume the same thing happened to most of the forum patrons who supported the state legislature because overnight, the thread became an echo chamber and that point of view disappeared completely.

I’m also blocked from that thread. It seems your assumptions are unfounded.

 

[Prince-1]

Buy your own Twitter if you don't like it. The man spent $44 billion on a social media platform. He should be allowed to post whatever he damn well pleases on it.

Sure he does. And big corporations like Disney, Walmart, Warner Bros, Apple, etc. have the right to not spend any money on his site after he agrees with anti-semitic posts and then throws a tantrum. I still laugh that Musk thinks they are blackmailing him.

 

[Prince-1]

You are welcome to believe whatever you'd like to believe. If you choose to believe there are not forum patrons who report posts because they disagree with the viewpoint expressed within the post, that is on you.

Oh I do think that happens but you made it seem that only one side does it which, I hate to burst that bubble of yours, is 100% incorrect.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Buy your own Twitter if you don't like it. Or as a cheaper option, you can even mute him.

That said, the man spent $44 billion on a social media platform. He should be allowed to post whatever he damn well pleases on it.

And everyone else should be able to react to his posts as they like and draw their conclusions about the people that support them. And they should be free not to pay him to post what he likes, an absolutely logical and unremarkable decision.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

Buy your own Twitter if you don't like it. Or as a cheaper option, you can even mute him.

That said, the man spent $44 billion on a social media platform. He should be allowed to post whatever he damn well pleases on it.

Facts. However, I'm of the camp that he shouldn't have been able to buy it. Unfettered capitalism leading to outsized influence on public opinion is a recipe for disaster. As we've seen.

 

[Brian]

Sure he does. And big corporations like Disney, Walmart, Warner Bros, Apple, etc. have the right to not spend any money on his site after he agrees with anti-semitic posts and then throws a tantrum. I still laugh that Musk thinks they are blackmailing him.

The companies certainly have no obligation to spend their money on the platform, but he does have a point when he says they're blackmailing him. They have made no bones about it that they don't like what he has to say and what he allows to occur on the platform, and have been very public in those stances. For what other purpose did they go public about pulling their ads if not to try to influence Musk and X and to create a pressure campaign against him?

If they merely pulled their ads quietly, I'd be inclined to agree with you that the blackmail claims are spurious.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Oh I do think that happens but you made it seem that only one side does it which, I hate to burst that bubble of yours, is 100% incorrect.

I only care about who does it to me. And I assure you, nobody reported my posts because they agreed with my viewpoint.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

The companies certainly have no obligation to spend their money on the platform, but he does have a point when he says they're blackmailing him. They have made no bones about it that they don't like what he has to say and what he allows to occur on the platform, and have been very public in those stances.

If they merely pulled their ads quietly, I'd be inclined to agree with you that the blackmail claims are spurious.

Am I the only one that thinks that blackmail is the wrong word here? Musk did a thing. The companies responded. Cause and effect. Maybe this is Musk realizing the concept of consequences?

 

[Ayla]

Buy your own Twitter if you don't like it. Or as a cheaper option, you can even mute him.

That said, the man spent $44 billion on a social media platform. He should be allowed to post whatever he damn well pleases on it.

I deleted my twitter account I had for over a decade because of that man. He was muted on my very first day of joining twitter, long before any of this nonsense started.

As we always say in 'Merica, he is welcome to post whatever he wants ~ he then must also deal with the consequences of those words.

 

[Prince-1]

The companies certainly have no obligation to spend their money on the platform, but he does have a point when he says they're blackmailing him. They have made no bones about it that they don't like what he has to say and what he allows to occur on the platform, and have been very public in those stances.

If they merely pulled their ads quietly, I'd be inclined to agree with you that the blackmail claims are spurious.

I suggest that you look up the definition of blackmail because what they did is not that at all. Musk agreed publicly with an obvious anti-semitic post and advertises decided not to spend their cash on trash. The fact that they made a statement in doing so isn't blackmail. Simple case of cause and effect.