When I mentioned communism and socialism I was pointing to the mischaracterization of capitalism. Capitalism is just the free and open market and when companies collude together to manipulate the market that’s not capitalism. Capitalism has built in rules against market manipulation and monopolies unfortunately that requires the government to do it’s job to enforce it, which it’s been doing a piss poor job of.
The fact that it requires a free and open market are the rules and since it’s a component of the government the government has to make sure the system is free and open.
No, capitalism is a component of the government. The point is to get the government out of twitter which records have shown the government was in twitter prior to Elon’s takeover.
What evidence is there that the companies are colluding? Are there communication logs where they all conversed and decided to pull ads? Is there any evidence at all that the companies had any interaction with each other about this and made a unifying decision to cancel their ads?
Collusion requires entities to work together to achieve a mutual goal. Otherwise, it’s just a coincidence of timing.
What past events with which companies?
And who is this “we” you’re referring to? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
So far you’ve admitted to speculating on ethereal events and are using that as your basis for claiming foul play while providing no evidence for any of it.
There has been multiple government hearings with Facebook, Apple, Google involving collusion. Also, look at the targeted takedown of Parlor by Amazon, Google, and Apple when it was a threat to the old twitter.
Did any of those hearings end with a conclusion and solid evidence of collusion? How many of those companies or executives at those companies got convicted of market manipulation or conspiracy, or even charged?
Once again you are pointing to multiple independent companies, who are each other’s direct competitors, doing something at the same time and attributing that to collusion when there is no evidence for that at all. Is it that hard to imagine that multiple companies would decide at the same time to stop offering an app that harms their brand? Especially when those companies were getting heat because Parlor was used to organize the Insurrection and had many calls for violence? Also, are you now claiming that they previously colluded in support of Twitter but are now colluding against it?
You seem to have a tenuous grasp on…well, everything, but certainly reality. Companies do what they think will make them the most money. If all three thought that having Parlor on their app store, or ads on Twitter next to neonazis would make them less money than not doing those things, they would decide not to do them. It’s really really basic stuff.
Unfortunately when you involve the government it’s always a matter of threat. But, the government involvement should stop at making sure everyone is playing a far equal and fair game.
Did I misunderstand, but you said you want the government to stop from intervening and making sure everyone plays and equal and fair game? This would mean you condone these companies from banding together.
I looked up and provided the wikipedia article purely for your benefit so you could know which (informal) fallacy your tired, trash argument falls under.
This is the same way that a (straw man) communist would argue: “it wasn’t true communism, we still haven’t tried true communism” based upon whatever ideal definition they have in their (fictitious, straw man) head.
I don’t even have to know the content of the argument when it’s couched in rhetoric like this to know that it’s a warmed over brick of dog shit.
I think you might be having difficulty grasping the idea that people have marketing budgets and if say the ceo of a company you advertise on very publicly endorses hate speech it does create a brand management problem.
You want your products to not be associated with things like, say, racism, which are kind of “yucky” to a lot of people.
As a result you might refocus spending. If a bunch of people do this at once this doesn’t mean there’s collusion. For example, during a thunderstorm you might see less people outside. This isn’t because they all colluding - people don’t like being struck by lightning. Similarly, companies don’t want their brands to be “yucky” to the average consumer and often its just a matter of moving the ad spending to another platform without the baggage.
You could ONLY limit this effect by banning advertising entirely.
Yes you’re right about public image and a company wanting to preserve it. And I might be a little hyperbolic about what I’m saying. But really if it was just public image along with their ads, they would delete/(stop using) all of their accounts to show that they didn’t want anything to do with Twitter as long as they had hateful content on there.
That doesn’t follow. Diverting ad spending is very different than closing feedback channels. For one, its likely to be handled by different departments in most companies and marketing budgets are likely to be far higher and more contentious than like micromanaging a social media handler.
Really? Because I’ve been repeatedly told by libertarian types (not socialists or communists) that any government regulation is not capitalism.
You’re free to disagree with them, but then I’m going to ask what your definition of capitalism is that assumes this regulation (not just allowing it, but mandating it).
. Because I’ve been repeatedly told by libertarian types (not socialists or communists) that any government regulation is not capitalism
Found your problem. That’s like asking flat earthers about gravity. They may think it exists but their concept of it is a fiction meant to align to their worldview.
No matter the system you need some level of regulation otherwise it’s just anarchy. What you want is a balanced regulation that not overbearing and keeps thing running smoothly.
In this context if they disagree so much they should just leave the platform and then it would fall under capitalism. What they want is to stay on the platform and dictate how it should be run and if they don’t get their way they make threats and ultimatums, which is a form of manipulation, I.e anti-capitalism.
It’s not manipulation to say “we’re leaving because you did this thing and won’t be back until you don’t do this thing.” This is simply the market forces articulating their preferences.
If I stop buying a company’s products because I disagree with the direction it’s going, I am voting with my wallet, not manipulating the company.
Yes vote with your wallet and leave, but don’t bring up false information to try and get others to leave, don’t use subsidiary companies, you own to lie and badmouth, when you leaving didn’t change the companies stance.
Media Matters stated that ads were showing up beside questionable content, which was proven to be them gaming the system to get that to happen. Disney, Amazon, Paramount owns a large amount of media companies that are smearing the website.
Yeah, that’s just capitalism.
Obviously you don’t understand capitalism and your just going off what people who want communism and socialism are saying.
Please explain to me how advertisers exercising their agency in choosing who to advertise with is “communism” or “socialism”.
deleted by creator
When I mentioned communism and socialism I was pointing to the mischaracterization of capitalism. Capitalism is just the free and open market and when companies collude together to manipulate the market that’s not capitalism. Capitalism has built in rules against market manipulation and monopolies unfortunately that requires the government to do it’s job to enforce it, which it’s been doing a piss poor job of.
It most assuredly does not. Addressing these externalities is the responsibility of government.
The fact that it requires a free and open market are the rules and since it’s a component of the government the government has to make sure the system is free and open.
I’m sorry, you think Twitter is a component of the US government?
No, capitalism is a component of the government. The point is to get the government out of twitter which records have shown the government was in twitter prior to Elon’s takeover.
Capitalism is not, and definitionally cannot be, a component of the government. It is an economic system
no no. dig UP, stupid
deleted by creator
What evidence is there that the companies are colluding? Are there communication logs where they all conversed and decided to pull ads? Is there any evidence at all that the companies had any interaction with each other about this and made a unifying decision to cancel their ads?
Collusion requires entities to work together to achieve a mutual goal. Otherwise, it’s just a coincidence of timing.
At the moment it’s speculation, but from past events involving these same companies we’ve witnessed collusion.
What past events with which companies?
And who is this “we” you’re referring to? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
So far you’ve admitted to speculating on ethereal events and are using that as your basis for claiming foul play while providing no evidence for any of it.
There has been multiple government hearings with Facebook, Apple, Google involving collusion. Also, look at the targeted takedown of Parlor by Amazon, Google, and Apple when it was a threat to the old twitter.
Did any of those hearings end with a conclusion and solid evidence of collusion? How many of those companies or executives at those companies got convicted of market manipulation or conspiracy, or even charged?
Once again you are pointing to multiple independent companies, who are each other’s direct competitors, doing something at the same time and attributing that to collusion when there is no evidence for that at all. Is it that hard to imagine that multiple companies would decide at the same time to stop offering an app that harms their brand? Especially when those companies were getting heat because Parlor was used to organize the Insurrection and had many calls for violence? Also, are you now claiming that they previously colluded in support of Twitter but are now colluding against it?
You seem to have a tenuous grasp on…well, everything, but certainly reality. Companies do what they think will make them the most money. If all three thought that having Parlor on their app store, or ads on Twitter next to neonazis would make them less money than not doing those things, they would decide not to do them. It’s really really basic stuff.
So, are you suggesting regulation of the market?
No, some level of punishment of those that try to manipulate/manopolize the market.
So you want to regulate it under threat?
Unfortunately when you involve the government it’s always a matter of threat. But, the government involvement should stop at making sure everyone is playing a far equal and fair game.
Did I misunderstand, but you said you want the government to stop from intervening and making sure everyone plays and equal and fair game? This would mean you condone these companies from banding together.
Your definition of capitalism in this argument is simply a no true scotsman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman.
Just because you’re able to lookup fancy words doesn’t make my sentence invalid. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
I looked up and provided the wikipedia article purely for your benefit so you could know which (informal) fallacy your tired, trash argument falls under.
You stating I’m wrong about something when you don’t understand something doesn’t make my argument invalid.
This is the same way that a (straw man) communist would argue: “it wasn’t true communism, we still haven’t tried true communism” based upon whatever ideal definition they have in their (fictitious, straw man) head.
I don’t even have to know the content of the argument when it’s couched in rhetoric like this to know that it’s a warmed over brick of dog shit.
I think you might be having difficulty grasping the idea that people have marketing budgets and if say the ceo of a company you advertise on very publicly endorses hate speech it does create a brand management problem.
You want your products to not be associated with things like, say, racism, which are kind of “yucky” to a lot of people.
As a result you might refocus spending. If a bunch of people do this at once this doesn’t mean there’s collusion. For example, during a thunderstorm you might see less people outside. This isn’t because they all colluding - people don’t like being struck by lightning. Similarly, companies don’t want their brands to be “yucky” to the average consumer and often its just a matter of moving the ad spending to another platform without the baggage.
You could ONLY limit this effect by banning advertising entirely.
Yes you’re right about public image and a company wanting to preserve it. And I might be a little hyperbolic about what I’m saying. But really if it was just public image along with their ads, they would delete/(stop using) all of their accounts to show that they didn’t want anything to do with Twitter as long as they had hateful content on there.
That doesn’t follow. Diverting ad spending is very different than closing feedback channels. For one, its likely to be handled by different departments in most companies and marketing budgets are likely to be far higher and more contentious than like micromanaging a social media handler.
Lol at someone insulting others understanding when they conflate communism and socialism.
I’m not conflating the two I’m simply saying the people that have an issue or misunderstanding and capitalism usage fall in either camp.
So capitalism bans collusion? How?
Government regulations. Capitalism is a component of the government so it should take government action to enforce it.
Really? Because I’ve been repeatedly told by libertarian types (not socialists or communists) that any government regulation is not capitalism.
You’re free to disagree with them, but then I’m going to ask what your definition of capitalism is that assumes this regulation (not just allowing it, but mandating it).
. Because I’ve been repeatedly told by libertarian types (not socialists or communists) that any government regulation is not capitalism
Found your problem. That’s like asking flat earthers about gravity. They may think it exists but their concept of it is a fiction meant to align to their worldview.
Musk himself tends to identify with libertarianism; we can still critique him from his own standards without accepting them outright.
Well sure but that just makes him more wrong, not libertarians more credible.
No matter the system you need some level of regulation otherwise it’s just anarchy. What you want is a balanced regulation that not overbearing and keeps thing running smoothly.
WTF regulation would exist to possibly prevent a corporate boycott of X ads anyway?
“We hereby mandate that you buy ads on Xitter!”
That’s your version of the one true capitalism? GTFOH
There is already laws on the books for collusion, and if they have been founded to have colluded to manipulate a company, those law apply to them
As far as I know, a corporate boycott of a thing isn’t at all illegal.
You sound like fucking Ruxin from The League.
OK, but the libertarian types who generally worship Musk are not going to like you one bit for saying it.
I don’t fall into teams and I’m not part of a cult I’m looking at the big picture.
I’m entirely pro-capitalism. Why should the free market not be allowed to act here?
In this context if they disagree so much they should just leave the platform and then it would fall under capitalism. What they want is to stay on the platform and dictate how it should be run and if they don’t get their way they make threats and ultimatums, which is a form of manipulation, I.e anti-capitalism.
It’s not manipulation to say “we’re leaving because you did this thing and won’t be back until you don’t do this thing.” This is simply the market forces articulating their preferences.
If I stop buying a company’s products because I disagree with the direction it’s going, I am voting with my wallet, not manipulating the company.
Yes vote with your wallet and leave, but don’t bring up false information to try and get others to leave, don’t use subsidiary companies, you own to lie and badmouth, when you leaving didn’t change the companies stance.
Can you cite any examples of the above happening?
And explain what this means?
Media Matters stated that ads were showing up beside questionable content, which was proven to be them gaming the system to get that to happen. Disney, Amazon, Paramount owns a large amount of media companies that are smearing the website.
And how did they game the system, exactly? By hitting refresh?
Customers expressing their opinions on your product is part of the market articulating its desires.