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

[Dan Deesnee]

Read my post in response to yours? Data collection isn't useful when you don't have enough regular users from which to collect useful data.

Twitter/X is far more likely to be bankrupt and closed in 5 years (although I don't think it will actually be closed) than to be one of the most profitable companies in the world. I think maybe you need to do some research into Twitter even before Musk purchased it.

Twitter's regular use by the media gave people a wildly incorrect view as to how popular/widespread it actually was. It was never a good place to get any statistically useful information about general public opinion, e.g. -- even at its absolute height I don't think it ever made it into the top 10 most used social media networks.

It's user count literally continues to go up every month. Users create valuable data, not the media.

 

[AEfx]

As an aside, I think Twitter/X has already hit the generational wall that Facebook hit a while ago. That feels like a death knell for social media sites (even if it's a slow, prolonged decline). Elon Musk may be accelerating it, but it was probably inevitable.

I have nieces and nephews in middle school, high school, and college, scattered across the country in three different states. None of them use it, and none of them know anyone who uses it. They all use Snapchat and TikTok. Twitter/X is an older generation thing to them and not something they care about.

I'm sure that is a factor - but the thing with Twitter that insulates it a bit from general "social media audience moving on" like MySpace, etc. - is how institutionalized it became and as quickly as it did. I mean, people focus on the one-off chattering and how "toxic" it all is, because it didn't take a genius to figure out that pithy short tweets were ever conducive to a meaningful platform for discussion.

That said, the backbone of the entire thing is that every large company, most world governments, etc. use it to disseminate information. Heck, a good half of stories on traditional media these days is sourced or begins with something that was tweeted.

The celebrities (and celebrity wannabes) moved to Instagram and TikTok already, and now we are seeing major companies testing the waters if they can do without it. But it has nothing to do with this one tweet in particular, or even Musk in general, it's because they all hate social media and the fact that for the past decade or so corporations have thought they lived or died based on whatever people were saying about them on Twitter or Facebook (even though the majority of the people screaming or praising weren't actually their customers to begin with).

It's such a double-edged sword for them to balance, and lately there have been a few very obvious public examples (and countless smaller ones) that show that what is said on social media does not actually affect real life in the way that these companies (and Wall Street) thought. Just because something is praised by people on social media, doesn't mean the public actually wants to consume it. Just because something is vilified on social media, doesn't mean people aren't going to go out and buy it. And at the end of the day, that's all these companies really care about - what makes them the most money - not about social causes or whatever the think is going to make people online say nice things about them.

What we are really seeing here is companies pulling away from social media, period, even if they are doing it kicking and screaming by focusing more on the "of the moment" one, like TikTok (and all those social media executives want their jobs to exist as long as possible, so they haven't given up, yet).

What will be interesting is what governments do. They don't really have other options to get out statements and other information so quickly and to basically everyone at once. They aren't going to go back to the dark ages of just releasing things to AP/Reuters, but there is no other social platform where they can release something with a click and reach all the people that need to see it (basically the entire mass media) as well as available directly to the public.

 

[Dan Deesnee]

It doesn't matter. IBM require that their adverts not be placed near hate speech. X says, we can do that. X fails to do that. IBM says, OK, your system doesn't work. It doesn't matter *how* Media Matters gamed it, X are making a promise they can't keep, and that's makes corporations nervous.


Not a chance. Media Matters described what they did, the results they got, X claimed the data was false, then bactracked and said "well it's true, but not really important, so we're suing!" They'll lose because they have no case.

I doubt this will even go to court, because Elon is just using this noise to muddy the narrative. That's been his MO since the 90s.

Completely wrong. Read the actual Media Matters report. They did not disclose how they manipulated the system to get those results. That is why they will lose in court.

By the way, the founder of Media Matters has some interesting blog posts you should go read before you continue to defend them...

 

[Lilofan]

Selective outrage & cancel culture again. Coming from a company who literally is in bed with China! Lmao. People gonna fall for this again because all of a sudden Elon is “bad” since he bought Twitter &
Allowed people to speak their minds. Twitter was a cesspool before noone cared….

Many companies throughout the world including in our own country are in bed with China. That's nothing new.

 

[LittleBuford]

“Bake the cake”

 

[adam.adbe]

It's definitely an affront to all that is good in this world.

 

[Andrew C]

Completely wrong. Read the actual Media Matters report. They did not disclose how they manipulated the system to get those results. That is why they will lose in court.

By the way, the founder of Media Matters has some interesting blog posts you should go read before you continue to defend them...

Separate from Elon's controversial post on X, media matters has been peddling garbage for years now. Political hit jobs are what they do so why anyone would take their word for anything is hilarious.

Anyways, these companies can make these decisions as it is their choice (whether I agree or not...and whether it is about the specific post or something greater). But there could also be consequences for doing so...we will see how that all plays out, I guess. At this time, it seems Israel and Elon have come to terms...

 

[Figment1984]

Anyways, these companies can make these decisions as it is their choice (whether I agree or not...and whether it is about the specific post or something greater). But there could also be consequences for doing so...but we will see how that all plays out, I guess. At this time, it seems Israel and Elon have come to terms...

With the quality of advertising I’ve been seeing come out of Disney’s marketing department lately, not putting anything out would probably be doing the company a service.

 

[Andrew C]

It's been a disgusting cesspool for years

Accurate. That is why I deactivated by account years ago...

 

[lazyboy97o]

I just reloaded manipulated WDWMagic! I am the best hax0r?

 

[adam.adbe]

I just reloaded manipulated WDWMagic! I am the best hax0r?

So *you're* the reason a bunch of posts just disappeared!

 

[Kamikaze]

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

Absolutely.

Should there be? No.

 

[UNCgolf]

I'm sure that is a factor - but the thing with Twitter that insulates it a bit from general "social media audience moving on" like MySpace, etc. - is how institutionalized it became and as quickly as it did. I mean, people focus on the one-off chattering and how "toxic" it all is, because it didn't take a genius to figure out that pithy short tweets were ever conducive to a meaningful platform for discussion.

That said, the backbone of the entire thing is that every large company, most world governments, etc. use it to disseminate information. Heck, a good half of stories on traditional media these days is sourced or begins with something that was tweeted.

The celebrities (and celebrity wannabes) moved to Instagram and TikTok already, and now we are seeing major companies testing the waters if they can do without it. But it has nothing to do with this one tweet in particular, or even Musk in general, it's because they all hate social media and the fact that for the past decade or so corporations have thought they lived or died based on whatever people were saying about them on Twitter or Facebook (even though the majority of the people screaming or praising weren't actually their customers to begin with).

It's such a double-edged sword for them to balance, and lately there have been a few very obvious public examples (and countless smaller ones) that show that what is said on social media does not actually affect real life in the way that these companies (and Wall Street) thought. Just because something is praised by people on social media, doesn't mean the public actually wants to consume it. Just because something is vilified on social media, doesn't mean people aren't going to go out and buy it. And at the end of the day, that's all these companies really care about - what makes them the most money - not about social causes or whatever the think is going to make people online say nice things about them.

What we are really seeing here is companies pulling away from social media, period, even if they are doing it kicking and screaming by focusing more on the "of the moment" one, like TikTok (and all those social media executives want their jobs to exist as long as possible, so they haven't given up, yet).

What will be interesting is what governments do. They don't really have other options to get out statements and other information so quickly and to basically everyone at once. They aren't going to go back to the dark ages of just releasing things to AP/Reuters, but there is no other social platform where they can release something with a click and reach all the people that need to see it (basically the entire mass media) as well as available directly to the public.

That's the thing, though -- Twitter was never as big as you'd think. It never had anywhere near as many users as Facebook, e.g., and I'm pretty sure it was never even one of the 10 largest social media sites.

It did get a lot of buy in from companies, governments, etc. as a place to send out information, as you mentioned, but now that they're starting to pull back on that it's hard to see where the future is for Twitter/X when younger people aren't interested.

 

[UNCgolf]

It's user count literally continues to go up every month. Users create valuable data, not the media.

Yes, users are the whole problem. You're basically repeating what I just said regarding needing users to create valuable user data. Twitter doesn't have enough user engagement to rely on data collection for revenue -- why do you think Elon has been floating subscription fees?

The sheer number of user accounts isn't really worth anything. They have to actually be used regularly (many are almost never used) and they can't be bots (and X has a lot of bot accounts).

 

[lazyboy97o]

It did get a lot of buy in from companies, governments, etc. as a place to send out information, as you mentioned, but now that they're starting to pull back on that it's hard to see where the future is for Twitter/X when younger people aren't interested.

Even without concerns of content this value was jettisoned. Twitter allowed companies, governments, etc. to broadcast news and information. Any parent could check a school district’s Twitter account to see if school is closed tomorrow due to weather but that is no longer the case. Now X requires users to have an account and limits free usage which seriously limits that broadcasting value.

I'm not sure how you continue to miss the point regarding users and user data. You're basically repeating what I just said regarding needing users to create valuable user data. Twitter doesn't have enough user engagement to rely on data collection for revenue -- why do you think Elon has been floating subscription fees?

X has started publicizing a number of new metrics that suggest increases in users and use. That is what he is repeating.

 

[Figment1984]

X has started publicizing a number of new metrics that suggest increases in users and use. That is what he is repeating.

Some of the metrics that Elon/X has been reporting is somewhat shady, to the point where it’s downright misleading at times.

For example, I’ve seen them frequently tout how many more views videos get when uploaded on X rather than Youtube or other platforms. The issue is, the way X quantifies a “view” is meaningless. Their own website states:

“Anyone who is logged into X who views a post counts as a view … Multiple views may be counted if you view a post more than once”.

That means simply scrolling past a video without even clicking into it counts as a video view. It would be the equivalent of YouTube starting to count the view if you just load the video thumbnail. It’s deceptive.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That means simply scrolling past a video without even clicking into it counts as a video view. It would be the equivalent of YouTube starting to count the view if you just load the video thumbnail. It’s deceptive.

Exactly. Could you imagine if Disney tried to claim that a show was the most popular ever on Disney+ because they counted it appearing in the carousel as a view?

 

[J4546]

I deleted the Twitter/X app and a few other social media apps from my phone a couple years ago and never looked back. I suggest everyone else do the same. Unplug from some of the digital gaebage filler bs in your life.

This was before Elon starting being a weird edge lord as well, I just decided I was spending too much time scrolling and engaging with stuff that was just meant to get a reaction.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

Some of the metrics that Elon/X has been reporting is somewhat shady, to the point where it’s downright misleading at times.

For example, I’ve seen them frequently tout how many more views videos get when uploaded on X rather than Youtube or other platforms. The issue is, the way X quantifies a “view” is meaningless. Their own website states:

“Anyone who is logged into X who views a post counts as a view … Multiple views may be counted if you view a post more than once”.

That means simply scrolling past a video without even clicking into it counts as a video view. It would be the equivalent of YouTube starting to count the view if you just load the video thumbnail. It’s deceptive.

A lawsuit waiting to happen. Ask Google.

Did Google mislead advertisers about TrueView skippable in-stream ads for the past three years?

Marketers consider small, muted, auto-playing TrueView in-stream ad placements to be “ad fraud”

adalytics.io

 

[JohnD]

Plenty of debate here so no reason for me to weigh in. However, I just scrolled through the entire thread. I'm surprised there is no mention of what to do with Musk's representation in the Golden Dream montage of AA.