I had this exchange with Elon here on Twitter over a year ago and we are still having the same conversation so I guess…let’s do this. Fortune 500 companies aren’t overly moral actors. They make decisions based on whether they think they will make more or less money. Advertisers are not leaving Twitter because they are trying to make a statement or achieve some goal (which would be a boycott). They are leaving Twitter because they aren’t sure whether advertising on the platform is delivering negative or positive value, and why spend a bunch of money doing something that might actually be /hurting/ you. The reason it might be hurting them is fuzzier. But, in my opinion, it’s not mostly to do with their ads showing up next to bigoted content. I think it’s that this platform is increasingly all about one guy in a lot of people’s minds. That one guy is both the most influential power use of the platform, and the owner of the platform. And that guy has trained everyone to expect that he is going to say increasingly inflammatory and unhinged stuff. That means employees and customers of those companies (who /are/ moral actors) don’t get good vibes from the company they like advertising with a company they don’t like. This is a symptom of the culture war that Elon Musk desperately wants to inflame because he is stuck inside of a really tight “you are always right” feedback loop of fans and friends who feel incapable of questioning him. He has attained a kind of moral certainty that he is fighting a war against an existential threat to humanity. That inevitably results in either an intervention of good friends or a complete crash (often times a violent one). But that’s when the person isn’t the richest person in the world. I don’t know what happens when it’s the richest person in the world, but I’m trying not to watch it like it’s a train wreck, because, just like with train wrecks, real people are getting hurt. That moral certainty is allowing him to do things that are very clearly bad for the economics of the platform (but good for keeping people talking about Elon Musk, which (as a person who has fallen into that trap before) is important to keep an eye on as an underlying motivation for all of this behavior.) It is not at all surprising that large advertisers, who advertise specifically to ensure their brands are perceived positively, are leaving (at least for the moment) a platform whose biggest brand ambassador is tweeting Great Replacement theories and Pizzagate memes. It is not an attempt to change Twitter or Elon’s behavior. It is an effort to not lose money.
Hank, it’s not your platform to police. Who are these people that are getting hurt by having a relatively uncensored public square conversation? There are many valid criticisms of Elon Musk but taking him to task for being a free speech advocate on his privately owned website is bananas. Curating public commentary to be more appealing to advertising is now a “progressive” take?
It looks to me like it is internally a boycott though, they would have to show ads were converting worse than before or way different than other apps, proving incentive to leave on top of what I agree with you can be some issues morally between the two. I think the smoking gun for me was different collusions between companies and different "groups" calling for this boycott which seemingly worked really well. Its pretty obvious theyre politically charged against anyone not purchased by the DNC and twitter is a direct threat to that. Especially after what hes seen on the back end hell he may have access to communications from FBI or others to show through twitter files of this collusion that we dont know of, hence why he said let the cards fall as they may.
@hankgreen How does someone who owns a social media site not understand what brand safety is?
@hankgreen I stopped reading your post right when you got to this part: "Fortune 500 companies aren't overly moral actors..." Then they should stay out of the business of lecturing people on morals. Many have abdicated their fiduciary responsibilities to chase this moralizing.
@hankgreen The craziest part is how many people are still on this site, even many activitely paying money for it. Like, he has a massive captured audience that finds *something* insanely better on here than many of the re-tread alternatives. And yet, he still creates instability.
@hankgreen The reason it is hurting them is that there is no equivalent of the electoral college or gerrymandering on the consumer market. Without those kind of skewed representations, there just isn't any kind of conservative majority in the US.
@hankgreen Very well said, I hate the guy and think he's responsible for the downfall of Twitter, but I appreciate your take and for what it's worth, I think you're spot on.