X CEO responds to Elon Musk telling departing advertisers to "Go f**k yourself"

Status
Not open for further replies.

midian182

Posts: 9,589   +120
Staff member
Big quote: Elon Musk has responded to advertisers rushing to leave former Twitter platform X by telling them to "Go f**k yourself," which is unlikely to appease the companies that were handing over millions for ad space. The owner's outburst has since been addressed by X CEO Linda Yaccarino, who said "X is standing at a unique and amazing intersection of Free Speech and Main Street."

Speaking with Andrew Ross Sorkin at The New York Times Dealbook Summit, Musk was asked about the advertiser exodus prompted by a report showing how some ads appeared next to pro-Nazi content on X. It came while Musk was already facing criticism for posting a positive reply to a message arguing that Jewish communities push hatred against whites. Musk has since apologized for his post, calling it "perhaps one of the most foolish, if not the most foolish, thing I've ever done on the platform."

IBM was the first to suspend its advertising on X, quickly followed by Apple, Walt Disney, Comcast, Warner Bros, and others. Musk told Sorkin their departure was going to "kill the company, and the whole world will know the advertisers killed the company."

That might sound as if Musk wants the advertisers to return, but when asked by Sorkin if this was the case, the billionaire said, "I don't want them to advertise."

"If somebody is going to try to blackmail with advertising, blackmail me with money, go f**k yourself," Musk added. "Go. F**k. Yourself. Is that clear, I hope it is." Musk appeared to single out Disney CEO Bob Iger by stating "Hey Bob, if you're in the audience, that's how I feel."

Back in June, it was reported that Twitter's ad sales were down 59%, likely due to the increasing amount of hate speech and pornography on the platform. In July, Musk said X was "still negative cash flow" due to the loss of advertisers "plus [a] heavy load debt."

X CEO Yaccarino posted a response to what she called Musk's "candid interview." She said he offered an apology, explanation, and explicit point of view about the company's position, adding that "X is enabling an information independence that's uncomfortable for some people. We're a platform that allows people to make their own decisions."

There are plenty of other interesting topics covered during Musk's interview with Sorkin, including the claim that his brain implant startup Neuralink has never caused the death of a monkey as they chose animals close to death due to terminal conditions. He added that the monkeys' recently built facilities are a "paradise."

Musk has certainly never been one to care what people think, but his latest outburst could be a costly one. It's doubtful that the massive loss of advertising revenue will be offset by the new subscriptions for users. Perhaps illustrating his mindset, the Tesla boss said, "It's a real weakness to be liked."

Permalink to story.

 
It came while Musk was already facing criticism for posting a positive reply to a message arguing that Jewish communities push hatred against whites.
Just to add, Elon did clarify that the second part of that tweet had nuance that is what he especially agreed with, which I didn't understand before. He said:
Elon Musk said:
The nature of the criticism was that the Jewish people have been persecuted for thousands of years. There is a natural affinity, therefore, for persecuted groups. This has led to the funding of organizations that essentially promote any persecuted group or any group with the perception. This includes radical Islamic groups. Everyone here has seen the massive demonstrations for Hamas in every major city in the West. That should be jarring.

Well a number of those organizations received funding from prominent people in the Jewish community. They didn't expect that to happen. But if you generically without condition sort of fund--if you fund persecuted groups, in general, some of those persecuted groups unfortunately want your annihilation. And what I meant by that when I subsequently clarified is that it's unwise to fund organizations that support groups that want your annihilation. Is this coming across clearly at this point? I think logically this makes a lot of sense.
For reference, here is that original tweet again:
The Artist Formerly Known as Eric said:
Jewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.

I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest **** now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don't exactly like them too much.
Musk has certainly never been one to care what people think, but his latest outburst could be a costly one.
Well whether it is costly probably depends on how people perceive this news, and fueled by some news agencies indubitably misreporting as Elon Musk telling "its" or "all" advertisers to go **** yourself. But any CEO should also expect that and temper their public comments as such. On the other hand, this article reports the news fairly and links to the entire conversation.
 
Last edited:
“Information independence” is a weird way to describe lies and conspiracy theories.

Are they declaring independence from reality?
The reason why conspiracy theories have flourished is because there is a perception that major news agencies DO lie on a regular basis. Thus those people with these theories that may be untrue base these on statements that depend on news agencies lying (or giving conspiracy theorists the benefit of the doubt, do not depend on statements only supported by the news agencies). Thus, information independence would be "independence" from the media.
 
Bet you've no clue what it even means except anything against your beliefs is "woke".
You believe in free speech no matter what it is, and advertisers definitely have the freedom to decide where to put their ads whether you like it or not.

-Indeed. Its a shame a lot of modern conservatism seems to revolve around "I have freedoms to be a douche, but you shouldn't have the freedom to criticize me or hold me responsible"
 
I'm a libertarian (not objectivist) by nature. I firmly believe that the state should be hands off where personal freedoms are involved. But that doesn't mean that exercising your freedom doesn't come with consequences. And Elon's journey with X (formerly twitter) is proving how costly some consequences can be. What did he expect would happen if he made X a wild west forum where anything (other then criticizing and/or embarrassing him) seems to go? Everything he's done so far in regards to twitter has been the actions of a man child having a tempermental meltdown IMHO. And if being associated with anything to do with Elon or X will cost a business, what does he expect them to do? Our tech darling like so many before him has proven to have feet of clay.
 
I'm a libertarian (not objectivist) by nature. I firmly believe that the state should be hands off where personal freedoms are involved. But that doesn't mean that exercising your freedom doesn't come with consequences. And Elon's journey with X (formerly twitter) is proving how costly some consequences can be. What did he expect would happen if he made X a wild west forum where anything (other then criticizing and/or embarrassing him) seems to go? Everything he's done so far in regards to twitter has been the actions of a man child having a tempermental meltdown IMHO. And if being associated with anything to do with Elon or X will cost a business, what does he expect them to do? Our tech darling like so many before him has proven to have feet of clay.
Far more people "get it" with Musk. A lot of us would love to tell Disney to "F" off.
 
“Information independence” is a weird way to describe lies and conspiracy theories.

Are they declaring independence from reality?
I'd argue that what Musk is promoting with this is independence from truth. Musk seems to think that letting anyone post anything they want, regardless of the truth behind it, is freedom of speech. Anyone, and literally everyone, posting to X is able to lie like hell while self-certifying that what they spake is truth regardless of whether or not its substance lies in truth. While I might appreciate Musk's supposed support of freedom of speech, it is nearly impossible to guarantee that anyone on any platform speaks anything that has any basis in truth.

As I see it, however, Musk's "freedom of speech" wears extremely thin if any X user should criticize the God of Mars himself. As long as that keeps happening, Musk is certifiably a hypocrite, IMO, and his claim of "Freedom of Speech" is a dog whistle for those who think their Freedom of Speech has been infringed - in other words, "Click Bait."

In that light advertisers fleeing the sinking ship of X are exercising their "Freedom of Speech" whether Musk, or any of those responding to his "Freedom of Speech" dog whistle, like it or not. And again, I see this as demonstrating, even more so, that Musk is, hands down, a hypocrite.

IMO, the sooner Musk shoots himself to Mars, the better. His X has literally turned into even more of a steaming pile of :poop: than it was before he locked himself into the deal. IMO, anyone who thinks there is a lack of censorship on X is definitely living in an alternate reality.

I am willing to bet that what is really behind this is Musk kicking himself in the rear because he made an extremely bad business decision in buying the sinking ship of X and the resulting loss of revenue; therefore, he needs to blame the easiest of targets - the fleeing advertisers exercising their Freedom of Speech - as if those advertisers should bail him out of his crap business decision.

Welcome to the real world, Elon. Take responsibility for your own actions.
 
Last edited:
I'd argue that what Musk is promoting with this is independence from truth. Musk seems to think that letting anyone post anything they want, regardless of the truth behind it, is freedom of speech. Anyone, and literally everyone, posting to X is able to lie like hell while self-certifying that what they spake is truth regardless of whether or not its substance lies in truth. While I might appreciate Musk's supposed support of freedom of speech, it is nearly impossible to guarantee that anyone on any platform speaks anything that has any basis in truth.

As I see it, however, Musk's "freedom of speech" wears extremely thin if any X user should criticize the God of Mars himself. As long as that keeps happening, Musk is certifiably a hypocrite, IMO, and his claim of "Freedom of Speech" is a dog whistle for those who think their Freedom of Speech has been infringed - in other words, "Click Bait."

In that light advertisers fleeing the sinking ship of X are exercising their "Freedom of Speech" whether Musk, or any of those responding to his "Freedom of Speech" dog whistle, like it or not. And again, I see this as demonstrating, even more so, that Musk is, hands down, a hypocrite.

IMO, the sooner Musk shoots himself to Mars, the better. His X has literally turned into even more of a steaming pile of :poop: than it was before he locked himself into the deal. IMO, anyone who thinks there is a lack of censorship on X is definitely living in an alternate reality.
But at least it isn't being censored to death by our Gov't anymore (as far as we know). People have a right to be ticked off at how we were only sent information to back their narrative. We still are on most media.
 
The reason why conspiracy theories have flourished is because there is a perception that major news agencies DO lie on a regular basis. Thus those people with these theories that may be untrue base these on statements that depend on news agencies lying (or giving conspiracy theorists the benefit of the doubt, do not depend on statements only supported by the news agencies). Thus, information independence would be "independence" from the media.
And their "Perception" seems to be that whatever they deem a lie is something that they do not agree with. "Perception" is definitely the key word in this. As it has been shown, one "media source" has outright admitted they lied, but only when forced to do so in a court of law, however, that does not mean that all media outlets spout lies in the name of revenue.
 
But at least it isn't being censored to death by our Gov't anymore (as far as we know). People have a right to be ticked off at how we were only sent information to back their narrative. We still are on most media.
As I see it, you're dealing with a perception that "our Gov't" is censoring you to death. While that may be true in the case of you, or anyone, from years past reporting a UFO, it isn't necessarily true now. IMO, that "perception" comes from something else. What that something else is is the key question, IMO.

Personally, I don't understand how anyone can feel that their freedom of speech is being infringed when they spout lies - especially lies that move others to violence - and in the US that has been litigated in a SCOTUS decision that "inciting violence" is not necessary for the free exchange of ideas that the 1st Amendment is, arguably, designed to protect.

Besides, X, or Twitter, was never under "gov't control" except to comply with law.

Are you telling me/us that what you really want is anarchy?
 
Bet you've no clue what it even means except anything against your beliefs is "woke".
You believe in free speech no matter what it is, and advertisers definitely have the freedom to decide where to put their ads whether you like it or not.
Why are you putting words in his mouth? You made a lot of assumptions based on a one liner?

"advertisers definitely have the freedom to decide where to put their ads"
True, but if most of the advertiser money is going on progressive-allinged platforms, it's basically killing off neutral and conservative leaning sites. It's making a good portion of the internet prog, while it's not really representative of the population at large.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back