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

[Squishy]

Was he really?

He said "Hey Bob, sure you're in the audience"

 

[lazyboy97o]

I just don't think that because one makes official announcements via their personal account that everything on their personal account going forward becomes an official position of the company. If I were in his shoes, I'd absolutely be separating it to avoid any confusion, such as what we're discussing now, and I can see why some would see it that way, but at the end of the day, I think that most people can read between the lines and distinguish between someone's personal thoughts and an official announcement/position*.

You don’t think he knows this? He didn’t have the official Twitter or X account amplified over all others (something you haven’t really grappled with). He knows very well that by using his personal account he can make these same claims that there is definitely a difference and people will push them for him as well. The man has had to pay millions of dollars over this, it isn’t an accident.

 

[Crunchie9]

While I agree it never could have been called a measure of America or it's pulse - It did have phenomenal reach which is why it was the platform of choice for people to get something discovered... and why it became the tip of the spear when it came to breaking news. The access combined with the audience and it's ability to operate without consent of the controls of media is why it became THE place for breaking news and where people went to find 'whats the latest buzz'.

It was never a representation of any populace - but it was the town square where people could see and be seen.

Now it's in decline primarily because of distaste and distrust of the people operating it, so the users are less eager and less tolerant of the BS noise that comes along with it.

So much truth and fact.. but then you get into political jabs at the last paragraph with absolutely sewers your credibility. It’s a shame because I was agreeing with you until the pot shots. Everyone knows about the back door access during the… of 2020. Your comment is disingenuous at best.

I’m bias too though. So what ever. lol.

 

[flynnibus]

So much truth and fact.. but then you get into political jabs at the last paragraph with absolutely sewers your credibility. It’s a shame because I was agreeing with you until the pot shots. Everyone knows about the back door access during the… of 2020. Your comment is disingenuous at best.

Sorry, you must be staring in the mirror. When I said "Now it's in decline primarily because of distaste and distrust of the people operating it, so the users are less eager and less tolerant of the BS noise that comes along with it." I am referring to the operational things Musk did with the company. From the lunatic firings, to the putting the health of the service on the edge, to the games he played with the city of SF, to the games he played with the company's bills, to the ridiculous renaming to X, to the the stupidity he played with features like the paid checkmark... and then didn't even deal with the the swamp factor of the bots and trolls on the platform, which is why he said he wanted to buy the thing in the first place.

The guy took a massive commercial enterprise and started running it like a spoiled brat - And that's what caused everyone to start pulling back.

 

[flynnibus]

I agree with you in general, but those two things are not one and the same. Distaste/distrust of leadership is a completely separate issue. The operational check mark problems would still exist even if the leadership was completely trusted because of how it muddies the water.

No they are not separate. The paid checkmark stuff was just one of the stupid circus acts they rammed through haphazardly which is just part of why people no longer trusted twitter as being ran by adults. The checkmark feature was not why people stopped their faith in twitter.. that was just one of many acts.. and the checkmark was never some make or break thing. It just helped with clone accounts. No one ever turned down breaking news or videos simply due to a lack of a checkmark. The entire process was exposed as haphazard and inconsistent when the OG checkmark users were disrupted by the new model and everyone had a dozen different stories about how they even had a checkmark to start with.

The distrust came started when Elon started throwing the company around like a cheap doll for him to play with and do whatever he pleased... threatening it's stability, it's models, and breaking all kinds of community expectations and standards. And when it was clear it was being ran as a dictatorship, with almost no respect for anyone... people quickly wanted to distance themselves from relying on twitter.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I’m not canceling him over one tweet that I really hate when he has said his intent was not to be antisemitic. Has said that antisemitism has no place in this world. And met with the families of the victims of October 7th to make amends, and offered help to Israel.

It’s not one tweet and we just saw a video of how sorry he was.

What was the phrase in the first tweet in the thread, the phrase Musk agreed with? Would you be this eager to “forgive” and defend if some random college student had supported that position?

 

[Andrew C]

Would you be this eager to “forgive” and defend if some random college student had supported that position?

Probably not. The college student doesn’t provide me with reliable internet.

 

[Figment1984]

In somewhat related news I just got an advert on one of my follower's (completely SFW) profiles for a website designed to generate deepfake adult content from images you upload. And no, I don't follow, like, or view anything like that for it to be a targeted ad.

I could only imagine the drama that would transpire if that advert appeared on say, Disney's Twitter profile.

 

[Brian]

In somewhat related news I just got an advert on one of my follower's (completely SFW) profiles for a website designed to generate deepfake adult content from images you upload. And no, I don't follow, like, or view anything like that for it to be a targeted ad.

I could only imagine the drama that would transpire if that advert appeared on say, Disney's Twitter profile.

And if it did, would you automatically assume that Disney endorses this service?

Does Disney endorse the short-lived "bin Laden had a point" trend on TikTok because some of their content may appear right after one of those videos?

 

[Figment1984]

And if it did, would you automatically assume that Disney endorses this service?

From a social media manager's perspective, I would immediately begin to question why this content is being served on my page and being associated with my brand, and if I should continue remaining on the website if nothing will be vetted anymore.

There is a reason why you don't see Coca-Cola and Apple advertisements on NSFW websites - even though those websites are some of the most-visited sites on the internet. Hmm, maybe that's missed profits!

 

[Brian]

From a social media manager's perspective, I would immediately begin to question why this content is being served on my page and being associated with my brand, and if I should continue remaining on the website if nothing will be vetted anymore.

There is a reason why you don't see Coca-Cola and Apple advertisements on NSFW websites - even though those websites are some of the most-visited sites on the internet. Hmm, maybe that's missed profits!

But again, I don't think that the average consumer sees it that way.

Take the front page of the New York Times website from just a few minutes ago:

I don't see that big banner of Chewy's products and assume that the NYT endorses them, or even has anything to do with them. The most you can say, in this example, is that Chewy paid an ad broker to appear on the NYT's website.

 

[Figment1984]

But again, I don't think that the average consumer sees it that way.

Take the front page of the New York Times website from just a few minutes ago:


I don't see that big banner of Chewy's products and assume that the NYT endorses them, or even has anything to do with them. The most you can say, in this example, is that Chewy paid an ad broker to appear on the NYT's website.

I never claimed that Disney endorses the content. The issue at hand is very adult content (potentially illegal, not sure what the exact laws of deepfakes are) are appearing on users' personal profiles where they are known for being family-friendly.

This is not user-generated content that Twitter can't immediately control. These are advertisements that Twitter is getting paid money for, to serve on other people's profiles, and should follow strict site standards. One would assume, like every other ad platform out there, that there is a team screening these advertisements before they go live. Looking at Twitter/X's ad policies - they're supposed to be approved beforehand, so why is this happening? And if it's going to continue to happen, is my brand at risk?

 

[Brian]

I never claimed that Disney endorses the content. The issue at hand is very adult content (potentially illegal, not sure what the exact laws of deepfakes are) are appearing on users' personal profiles where they are known for being family-friendly.

This is not user-generated content that Twitter can't immediately control. These are advertisements that Twitter is getting paid money for, to serve on other people's profiles, and should follow strict site standards. One would assume, like every other ad platform out there, that there is a team screening these advertisements before they go live. Looking at Twitter/X's ad policies - they're supposed to be approved beforehand, so why is this happening? And if it's going to continue to happen, is my brand at risk?

Why should it matter if an ad such as the one you described appears next to a @ WaltDisneyWorld post about the Hatbox Ghost if the vast majority of users know that there's no link between the two? I'd blame X for allowing such an ad, not Disney.

Now if that same ad appeared on Disney+, I'd certainly be blaming Disney for that, and can understand why their reputation might take a hit.

Perhaps I don't see it that way since I've never worked in advertising or social media management, but as a consumer I just don't see the big deal.

 

[Kamikaze]

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).

The whole reason he purged the bots was so that he could let them re-create new accounts so the number would go higher (back to what it was before he purged them).

 

[Figment1984]

Why should it matter if an ad such as the one you described appears next to a @WaltDisneyWorld post about the Hatbox Ghost if the vast majority of users know that there's no link between the two? I'd blame X for allowing such an ad, not Disney.

Perhaps I don't see it that way since I've never worked in advertising or social media management, but as a consumer I just don't see the big deal.

Yes, your logic makes sense, unfortunately, most people can't make that distinction.

That said, most brands who try to appeal to a wide audience (especially kids) would not want to be associated with NSFW content. You might be able to make the conclusion that the two are unrelated, but for many, they will make an association.

Thankfully, my ads reverted back to my usual 2024 dog pooping calendars, so perhaps it was just a one-off.

 

[Brian]

Yes, your logic makes sense, unfortunately, most people can't make that distinction.

That said, most brands who try to appeal to a wide audience (especially kids) would not want to be associated with NSFW content. You might be able to make the conclusion that the two are unrelated, but for many, they will make an association.

I can understand the desire not to be associated with NSFW/other unscrupulous content, I just don't think it's as big of a deal as the advertisers in this situation claim it is. Iger even mentioned today it wasn't the content they appear alongside, but the comments Elon himself made, as the reason they pulled out.

 

[Disney Analyst]

But again, I don't think that the average consumer sees it that way.

Take the front page of the New York Times website from just a few minutes ago:

View attachment 756794

I don't see that big banner of Chewy's products and assume that the NYT endorses them, or even has anything to do with them. The most you can say, in this example, is that Chewy paid an ad broker to appear on the NYT's website.

You'd be amazed by the number of people who will genuinely believe New York Times specifically placed that ad there, and is fully in charge of that.

The amount of calls I have every day related to tech, software, websites... I promise you, there are a lot of naive people out there.

And in the end, when it comes to ad spend, what ads appear where, what sites a company places ads on, I am sure there is a mix of what they think consumers would think, and also their preference.

Perhaps most consumers would NOT associate a Disney ad on Twitter with some of the crazy stuff put up on the website, but if Disney cares, that is all that really matters.

 

[flynnibus]

They absolutely are separate in the context of the original comment. Of course they're connected in an overall sense, but that's irrelevant to the point.

Everything you're saying here is correct but it's an aside.

Your original comment I replied to was "It's also been used by the media as though it's the pulse of American (or even world) public opinion, when it's never been remotely suited for that purpose because it's never had anywhere near the broad reach among the general populace that Twitter/X users think it does."

I said it was never about the pulse of American or other opinions - it was a conduit that very much did have far reach and held a position valued far above many traditional media channels. What triggered my response was the 'broad appeal' comment. Literally it had supplanted media empires as where people would goto to learn about something.. and was the platform people went to get something seen/heard. It didn't have individual customer appeal - but it was how news was broke and information disseminated. So much so, it was quicker and the 'go to' people and even media came to rely on. That is the wild success that twitter had stumbled its way to eventually.... all the way up to the point Elon started managing it and doing so poorly people thought he was literally trying to run it into the ground.

No it didn't have individual appeal to every American... but like the SWIFT banking network, it was something that the services the public people did turn to, relied upon themselves. It was the dirty open network that even media companies would eventually start sourcing from. It had become so central to how information flowed many believed it to be an essential service - the type they fear when governments block/seize...

And then Elon it up so much it probably will take years and chance to recover.. if he doesn't completely sink it in the mean time.

 

[Squishy]

Censorship at its finest

 

[BuddyThomas]

Censorship at its finest

It’s their channel. They can delete whatever they want. Just like in here. It’s their site. They can delete whatever they want. And they do. Daily.