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

[Brian]

There is a huge difference from doing nothing and trying but failing.

The idea of a 'free speech platform,' to the extent that one can exist in society today, is that content which is considered by some to be 'hateful' is allowed to remain on the site.

Meta does not purport to be a free speech platform. They have a list as long as a CVS receipt of things you cannot say on their platforms. That's their prerogative, but I think it's even more of an indictment on them that they have such lengthy rules which are apparently not sufficiently enforced to protect children online, than it is for a platform which claims to be devoted to free speech allowing content to stay up.

Why do you keep harping on this bogus disingenuous point? The site prioritizes Musk’s content.

Has this been proven?

Maybe they arent seeing a good return on investment?

Walmart didn't. That's why they pulled their ads in October, before the controversy over Musk's remarks.

I don't begrudge them one bit for doing so. Their reasoning was purely business.

I bet it's the opposite. People who work in marketing here have said that returns on twitter are actually very low. I don't think it's because they have some personal hatred of Musk, I think it's because it never was a great return, and this is an excuse to make a big show about how much they care while getting out of a platform that wasn't worth it.

That's also possible, though I do think that if Iger didn't hate Musk before, he does now.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't think they were guided by a fear of poor ROIs by being associated with Musk. Rather, I suspect at least some of them were motivated by pettiness against him personally, and wanting to see him and X fail.

And they all waiting for a year through multiple issues.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The idea of a 'free speech platform,' to the extent that one can exist in society today, is that content which is considered by some to be 'hateful' is allowed to remain on the site.

Meta does not purport to be a free speech platform. They have a list as long as a CVS receipt of things you cannot say on their platforms. That's their prerogative, but I think it's even more of an indictment on them that they have such lengthy rules which are apparently not sufficiently enforced to protect children online, than it is for a platform which claims to be devoted to free speech allowing content to stay up.

I’m not talking about hateful content. I’m talking about CSAM. That’s well established in the US as a clear exception to freedom of speech. Musk has allowed CSAM on Twitter to grow significantly. Musk unbanned someone who posted CSAM.

Has this been proven?

Yes. Musk published Twitter’s code and it contained the edits that boost his account over all others.

 

[Brian]

I’m not talking about hateful content. I’m talking about CSAM. That’s well established in the US as a clear exception to freedom of speech. Musk has allowed CSAM on Twitter to grow significantly. Musk unbanned someone who posted CSAM.

Certainly all social media platforms should be doing everything they can do crack down on CSAM. I just don't think that's what's at issue when it came to Disney and others pulling their ads. Iger explicitly said it's because they don't like what Musk had to say on his personal account.

Yes. Musk published Twitter’s code and it contained the edits that boost his account over all others.

I've gone back to look for reports on that, and all I saw was an article from 'Platformer' (a SubStack I have never heard of) which claims to have obtained documents confirming what they say, but not releasing them. Also plenty of articles from other Musk-hating outlets citing Platformer as their source.

Needless to say, I'm not necessarily convinced.

 

[Stripes]

I don't think they were guided by a fear of poor ROIs by being associated with Musk. Rather, I suspect at least some of them were motivated by pettiness against him personally, and wanting to see him and X fail.

I think they were guided a fear of association with such divisive comments, which would not reflect well on their brand (the entire purpose of advertising is uplifting the brand not spending millions for no reason)

Also Twitter is not a pig to fatten up and slaughter. They spent hundreds of millions on Twitter ads after Elon bought it. The notion they were animated by a personal vendetta is nonsensical.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

I think you're attributing to malice something that can be attributed to stupidity. Musk didn't post what he posted because he wanted to be hateful, he posted it, as he admitted*, as a mistake.

*The admission:

I'm not the arbiter of moral decisions, but I've never "stupidly" made anti-semitic comments.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Certainly all social media platforms should be doing everything they can do crack down on CSAM. I just don't think that's what's at issue when it came to Disney and others pulling their ads. Iger explicitly said it's because they don't like what Musk had to say on his personal account.

Who said it was Disney’s reasoning? You were trying a whataboutism that only works by ignoring what has actually happened at X.

 

[Brian]

Who said it was Disney’s reasoning? You were trying a whataboutism that only works by ignoring what has actually happened at X.

This is what Iger said of the decision to pull ads from X (emphasis added):

I have a lot of respect for Elon and what he has accomplished. [...] We know that Elon is larger than life in many respects, and that his name is very much connected to the companies he founded or he owns. Whether it’s Tesla or SpaceX, or now X. By him taking the position he took in a public manner, we just felt that the association with that position and Elon Musk and X was not necessarily a positive one for us, and we decided we'd pull our advertising. We are allowing entities of the company to use X as a platform to communicate, ABC News is a good example of that, ESPN and others [...].

Source: https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1730314856178319565

 

[Brian]

I'm not the arbiter of moral decisions, but I've never "stupidly" made anti-semitic comments.

Surely you've said something you didn't intend to say, or something that was taken by others in a way that you didn't intend, right?

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is what Iger said of the decision to pull ads from X (emphasis added):


Source: https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1730314856178319565

And your point?

 

[MandaM]

Surely you've said something you didn't intend to say, or something that was taken by others in a way that you didn't intend, right?

Personally, if someone says something racist or anti-Semitic, I’ve never “accidentally” told them that they speak the absolute truth.

 

[JD80]

I for one would not spend this much energy defending a billionaire on anything from racist comments or choice of snack foods. They're billionaires they don't need or care about you. They probably shouldn't exist in any case.

 

[Brian]

And your point?

You seemed to dispute my post which paraphrased Iger's own comments which were subsequently quoted.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

I hope Elon Musk gets a group of like minded investors together and buys Disney. Time to right the ship!

 

[lazyboy97o]

You seemed to dispute my post which paraphrased Iger's own comments which were subsequently quoted.

I was disputing your whataboutism.

 

[Brian]

I was disputing your whataboutism.

Technically, it's not my 'whataboutism' but Musk's. I also think it's worth comparing the two platforms.

But at the end of the day, none of it matters, because Disney pulled their ads because of Musk's comments, not anything about the content found on X.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Technically, it's not my 'whataboutism' but Musk's. I also think it's worth comparing the two platforms.

But at the end of the day, none of it matters, because Disney pulled their ads because of Musk's comments, not anything about the content found on X.

You’re pushing it here. It being an issue (which it likely is) would still result in Disney pulling ads from X first. But hey, maybe you can rationalize Musk unbanning someone who openly posted CSAM.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Right, and while these companies are free to spend their money as they please, I personally think that's a crappy reason to pull advertising from the platform. It should be based on whether or not they see a good return on their investment, not whether they like the owner and the things he says on his personal account.

While I agree it’s personal I disagree that ROI should be the deciding factor on whether to give them money, I’ve avoided a lot of stores over personal decisions, I enjoy subway but didn’t eat there for a few years over a spokesperson they were using, sometimes withholding cash is the best way to show a company (or person) you disagree with what they’re doing. I think we’re seeing that with Disney itself right now, we’re seeing it with lots of companies right now. People protesting with their wallets is American as Apple pie.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

Surely you've said something you didn't intend to say, or something that was taken by others in a way that you didn't intend, right?

A bit of a straw man fallacy there.

Not to mention I'm not a billionaire who yields an unusual amount of public influence by purchasing a widely-used social media platform.

 

[Brian]

While I agree it’s personal I disagree that ROI should be the deciding factor on whether to give them money, I’ve avoided a lot of stores over personal decisions, I enjoy subway but didn’t eat there for a few years over a spokesperson they were using, sometimes withholding cash is the best way to show a company (or person) you disagree with what they’re doing. I think we’re seeing that with Disney itself right now, we’re seeing it with lots of companies right now. People protesting with their wallets is American as Apple pie.

I agree with making personal financial decisions based on whether you agree/disagree with the company, but I don't think that companies should do that when it comes to other companies or their own products/services. I abhor corporate activism because, by their very nature, corporations are made up of a large group of people, some with differing views from what the company espouses via their activism. Additionally, it's not good for the shareholders, as it alienates those whom the activism works against.

Certainly there are meritorious causes to work towards, such as eliminating and rooting out CSAM, but most of the corporate activism we see lately is politically motivated and divisive, not things that all well-meaning people can get behind.