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

[Brian]

Linda has been telling these advertisers that there are systems in place to stop ads from appearing next to certain types of content. This is not true and the ad revenue sharing means these companies are not just having ads placed in places they don’t want it but also indirectly funding it. X isn’t holding up their end of the bargain, that’s something that seems like a business decision. Compounded with declining views makes it even more of a business decision.

As I understand it, one needs to have a sizable following and engagement on their X account to be eligible for monetization. The average, casual antisemite on X wouldn't be eligible for monetization.

That said, I do think that the monetization system breeds "hot takes" and could use a retooling.

 

[Dan Deesnee]

Refusing to be involved with a platform whose brand is closely associated with hate speech IS avoiding controversy.

Then they would have to take themselves off ALL social media. And please don't reply that the other social media platforms don't have hate speech...

 

[Brian]

Free speech absolutists don’t SLAPP people over things they admit are true.

X is, sadly, no bastion of absolute free speech, but I do think it's the most "free" of the major platforms.

 

[LittleBuford]

And please don't reply that the other social media platforms don't have hate speech...

Do their owners personally endorse hate speech?

 

[Cliff]

No-one is cancelling Twitter; they’re just choosing not to give it their business.

I'm not talking about this problem specifically,...but the much larger "big picture" social problem. Our tolerance for each other is dropping bit by bit by bit every single day that goes by...and we CELEBRATE this problem as somehow a "good" thing??

Being offended is somehow a trendy "cool" thing to have happen to us! It's like:

"I just got offended today and I want the entire world to know it and see it....so I can get a pat on the back and get social affirmation and feel like a glorious victim"

It's crazy,...this Twiter thing is just one example of billions. This mentality hurts ALL of us and I hope we somehow stop teaching it to everybody.

 

[UNCgolf]

I think that what this argument today comes down to is that there are some who would prefer that even the most repugnant speech be permitted on the internet, while others who consider such speech "harmful" would prefer it be censored.

I consider myself part of the former category. I've seen some of the worst of humanity on X since the 10/7 attacks in Israel. For example, when reports came out that Hamas had burned a baby alive in an oven while committing acts unspeakable on this platform on its mother, there were isolated instances of people cheering this barbarity on. Sadly, there are others of this kind both related to the 10/7 attacks and on other topics.

Obviously, I find content of this nature reprehensible, and in the example, gut-wrenching. But the only solution to speech of that kind is more speech... more good-willed people coming in and destroying their arguments on both moral and factual levels. Merely censoring it only allows this hate to fester and grow. Allowing such speech, and having a discourse to, ideally, change their minds, is required for the sake of humanity.

I generally agree with this and fall into this category, but there's a huge difference between simply allowing such speech and having your company's advertisements placed next to it.

 

[Dan Deesnee]

Do their owners personally endorse hate speech?

Him endorsing it is your opinion. I read it, and don't think it's an endorsement at all.

 

[LittleBuford]

I'm not talking about this problem specifically,...but the much larger "big picture" social problem. Our tolerance for each other is dropping bit by bit by bit every single day that goes by...and we CELEBRATE this problem as somehow a "good" thing??

Being offended is somehow a trendy "cool" thing to have happen to us! It's like:

"I just got offended today and I want the entire world to know it and see it....so I can get a pat on the back and get social affirmation and feel like a glorious victom"

It's crazy,...this Twiter thing is just one example of billions. This mentality hurts ALL of us and I hope we somehow stop teaching it to everybody.

I agree there is a very unfortunate level of tribalism and division in today’s society. It’s very disheartening indeed.

I don’t really see how that pertains to the topic of this thread, however.

 

[LittleBuford]

Him endorsing it is your opinion. I read it, and don't think it's an endorsement at all.

I mean, he wrote, “You have said the actual truth.” How is that not an endorsement?

 

[Dan Deesnee]

I generally agree with this and fall into this category, but there's a huge difference between simply allowing such speech and having your company's advertisements placed next to it.

Ah yes, you're referring to the Media Matters report. The report where they manipulated Twitter in order to generate the results they were looking for. Results which no other user on the entire platform would ever receive without doing such manipulation.

People need to quit jumping on bandwagons and get the actual facts. This is why musk is now suing media matters, and since they have all the data tracked, they're going to win and likely put them out of business.

 

[Figment1984]

Pretty much every social media company has a large sales team whose main job is to be on-call, 24/7, for their clients. Facebook, Tiktok, etc. all have hundreds, if not thousands, of people staffed solely to develop relationships with their clients and ensure their campaign needs are being met. If an advertiser had an issue, needed feedback, or simply wanted to chat, they had dedicated people assigned to them who would respond within minutes, especially if their client is a multi-billion dollar partner. Twitter had this until the takeover, and seemingly, very little was done for a replacement since a year ago.

Other than that, Twitter ads were always bad lol. I'm a pretty mundane person on social media who follows a bit of movies, sports, music, video games - yet for some reason, the only advertisements I seem to get are, uh, "2024 calendar of squatting dogs". Meanwhile, if I so much as think of buying a new pair of sneakers, here comes Instagram with an Adidas ad!

Obviously this is boring sales stuff nobody cares about and the entertaining reasoning is politics or whatever, but I would not be surprised if this was a conglomerate of issues and this particular incident ended up being the final straw.

 

[lazyboy97o]

As I understand it, one needs to have a sizable following and engagement on their X account to be eligible for monetization. The average, casual antisemite on X wouldn't be eligible for monetization.

That said, I do think that the monetization system breeds "hot takes" and could use a retooling.

There are people who self-identify with a following who get paid.

 

[UNCgolf]

X, love them or hate them, is going to be one of the most profitable companies in the world within ~5 years due to their data gathering capabilities coupled with the type of data they collect. This is why Musk has been buying every GPU he can get his hands on. X data combined with their ai will be a game changer.

In the moment thought data, combined with location, is incredibly valuable. No other platform does it that way.

That's unlikely. Twitter/X is declining, not growing, and even at its height there just weren't that many regular users.

Twitter/X was never remotely as large as people who used it daily thought it was -- only about 25% of the American population used it at all, and the majority of those users were not on it every day and also didn't actually engage with anything (i.e. no tweets, comments, etc.) beyond scrolling through a feed.

 

[Dan Deesnee]

That's unlikely. Twitter/X is declining, not growing, and even at its height there just weren't that many regular users.

Twitter/X was never remotely as large as people who used it daily thought it was -- only about 25% of the American population used it at all, and the majority of those users were not on it every day and also didn't actually engage with anything (i.e. no tweets, comments, etc.) beyond scrolling through a feed.

Read my post above about their data collection. There's a reason he changed the name to X and there's a reason why he's developed his own AI and has been buying every GPU he can get his hand on.

 

[LittleBuford]

The idea that all these companies are no longer advertising on Twitter(X) because of the Elon Tweet. Now Twitter is being banned or canceled by these companies? It's pathetic that we as a society have come to this.

I just hope this mentality doesn't get even worse!...but I'm betting it will!

Not giving your money to a business is not the same as banning or cancelling them. By that standard, all the people in this forum who say they are no longer going to WDW or subscribing to Disney+ would be guilty of trying to ban or cancel Disney, which would obviously be an absurd thing to claim.

 

[UNCgolf]

Read my post above about their data collection. There's a reason he changed the name to X and there's a reason why he's developed his own AI and has been buying every GPU he can get his hand on.

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.

 

[lazyboy97o]

X is, sadly, no bastion of absolute free speech, but I do think it's the most "free" of the major platforms.

This is provably false. Twitter used to aggressively fight most take down requests. Now they generally grant them even in jurisdictions where they have prevailed and outside those jurisdictions. All sorts of content and people critical of the ownership have been throttled and outright banned.

 

[Brian]

I generally agree with this and fall into this category, but there's a huge difference between simply allowing such speech and having your company's advertisements placed next to it.

I agree, but what I don't get is the idea put forth by some that the average X user will see a post in their feed with antisemitic or other unsavory views followed by an ad for Wish and think that Disney endorses the antisemitic post.

One could make the argument that an ad for Wish appearing in the replies to an antisemitic post might be a different story, and X would be wise to make said ad more clear that it is an ad, and perhaps have an option for advertisers to include a disclaimer that says something to the effect of "The advertiser does not necessarily endorse the views espoused in the original post."

This in addition to their ongoing efforts to ensure that advertisers have control over where their ads appear in the first place, which, as I understand it, includes safeguards against the scenario I described, should negate the problem.

 

[adam.adbe]

Ah yes, you're referring to the Media Matters report. The report where they manipulated Twitter in order to generate the results they were looking for. Results which no other user on the entire platform would ever receive without doing such manipulation.

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.

People need to quit jumping on bandwagons and get the actual facts. This is why musk is now suing media matters, and since they have all the data tracked, they're going to win and likely put them out of business.

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.

 

[Brian]

There is no imperative for a private platform to allow hate speech or any speech the owner dislikes. That’s why, while Musk’s censorious tendencies are odious and worthy of condemnation (especially when done at the behest of governments like those of India and Turkey), he’s within his rights and our government shouldn’t get involved.

The idea that “better” speech counters misinformation is naive. It is much, much easier to shovel lies then to combat them with the truth, and a firehose of falsehood can overcome any attempt at fact checking. This is the acknowledged strategy of many of the worst misinformation pushers. What’s more, many (most?) people have no interest in acknowledging a truthful argument, no matter how solid it may be, if it forces them to ask questions about fundamental beliefs and if acknowledging the truth would get them ostracized from their community. This is especially true when there are huge networks of powerful people and media outlets encouraging them to continue lying to themselves.

This is in no way an attack on free speech, probably the most vital freedom we have. It’s simply a sad acknowledgment of reality.

I largely agree with what you said, especially when it comes to it being easier to shovel lies than combat them with truth and most people having no interest in acknowledging a truthful argument. That said, I still stand by my position with the caveat that we as a society need to do a better job at defending our positions, and when it comes to actual misinformation, disputing it with real sources.

X has done some good things to this end. Community notes (formerly Bird Watch) was brought back under Musk, and it requires consensus from both "sides" for a note to go live. It also notifies you if a post you interacted with is later "noted." Additionally, to combat the epidemic of just reading the headline, which is often sensationalized, X asks users if they want to read the article before reposting it.

There's plenty of work to be done in this regard, but X has taken some good steps, IMHO.