So… if you believe this, what would happen if you were directly offensive in this thread toward someone?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Elon Musk Claims Apple Has 'Mostly Stopped' Offering Ads on Twitter and Is Making Moderation Demands
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not wanting government to censor speech is one thing. Wanting to see others come together of their own volition to shun vile and hateful speech is another. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. While I might not want the government to be able to tell you that you can't say racist things, I have no problem if people collectively choose to shun such disgusting things and those who say them. It boils down to, if you don't want to be treated like an ***hole, don't be an ***hole.
The substantiation for this claim is?
The terms of service of twitter has not changed. Is there proof (archived tweets) of accounts being banned arbitrary while not violating the ToS or existing law?
If a kid brings a knife to a classroom, and another kid alerts the teacher, does that kid get suspended “because” of the alert…or because he literally brought a knife to school?
For Twitter to survive and become a profitable business, Musk is going to need to find a way to get Tweet creators more engaged AND increase the amount of advertisers paying to post on the site. There is zero chance that he can find enough users to pony up a big enough amount on a per-month subscription to make the company profitable. There just isn’t enough value in what Twitter provides to make it worth the subscription.
I think he needs to develop the business to be more like YouTube, but I’m not sure how you do that when it’s effectively been an aggregator in short-form for news, videos, sports, politics, people, government, tv, etc.
I think he needs to develop the business to be more like YouTube, but I’m not sure how you do that when it’s effectively been an aggregator in short-form for news, videos, sports, politics, people, government, tv, etc.
Apple is not the one who is doing the moderation. They require the app developer to have a process and people in place for this. It's not a problem for Apple if something slips through as long as there are functionality and processes to deal with content like this.
Apple evaluates the app developers ability to deal with content like this, not the content itself.
Read the guidelines.
It is possible.
We don’t have access to the loan terms he agreed to buying Twitter. So he could have a perverse incentive to force it into bankruptcy to lower his obligation to those lenders while coming out better after a restructuring. Normally, a company publicly traded like Twitter would be legally prohibited for such actions as he’d be legally obligated to operate in the best interest of shareholders, but Twitter was delisted and moved private to get out from under the rules of securities laws.
The perverse incentive is a bankruptcy court can force a liquidation or restructuring that forces lenders to accept a devaluation on their loans. If the banks were doing their part they should have additional clauses to allow them access to his Tesla holdings as a backstop to prevent them having to absorb a loss, but we can’t confirm that.
If I ban racists and transphobes from my house, how is that not freedom of association? I don't have to associate with those types if I do not want to, including not letting them into the home I pay for.
And plenty of celebrities have been banned from endorsement contracts after their own freedoms of speech That didn’t align with the companies views.
Your wanting to come together and community shunning is non-sequitur to this discussion.
The survey asked nothing of finger-wagging and esprit de corps.
It simply asked if it is important for people to speak freely, even if it unpopular and unwelcoming. One group answered with a majority No.
Out of principle, you can dislike what people say, and also like that they are able to say it. This is also not mutually exclusive. Remember when the ACLU defended a Klans right to march? Or the Voltaire quote….?
I usually don’t post in these ‘political’ threads but does anyone think that he might be mentally ill? Brilliance and mental illness are by no means mutually exclusive.
And lol? If I don't like the things you say, I certainly don't have to give you money to represent me or my brand. Especially since money equals speech.
Being allowed to speak freely is fine. I don't have to listen to it. I can encourage others to not listen to it. I can encourage others to not give you use of their own resources to say it. If your speech is so vile that the only place left for your speech is in front of the statehouse or courthouse, that's your problem. Also, the question specifically related to online speech, not in general. If no tech companies want to host what your speech, that's your problem as well.
Let's apply same logic to Tim Cook body of work
1. His production lined killed 3 people.
2. Apple CM has been caught several times using child labor
3. Apple CM has several riots and protests
4. Apple allowed CM/Chinese government TJ force student work as labor in China.
So while apple has brilliant in making money. Could same thing be said of Tim Cook is mentally ill since he obvious have split personality?
That is your choice.
But Apple doesn't have that right to ban. Like you don't have right to ban what I have to say.
Tech bros, stop wetting your pants over an emotionally under-developed juvenile.
His displays of petulance and aggression are not masculinity or leadership.
You clearly have issues, everyone does. But don't go around mouth wide open hoping some of his sweat will fly into it. That honey won't cure you of your insecurities.
There are better people to be inspired by. That person who serves you coffee works harder and has greater emotional intelligence.
His displays of petulance and aggression are not masculinity or leadership.
You clearly have issues, everyone does. But don't go around mouth wide open hoping some of his sweat will fly into it. That honey won't cure you of your insecurities.
There are better people to be inspired by. That person who serves you coffee works harder and has greater emotional intelligence.
Last edited:
I think he is under tremendous pressure given the annual interest payments on his loans and he is trying to drive engagement while scapegoating and using 'free speech' as a strawman guise/cudgel to detract from signing a purchase agreement while waving due diligence. He wants to blame someone for a bad decision he made and wouldn't you know it Twitter will provide him will the biggest microphone on the planet to distract from his own poor judgement in this case.
So you're claiming Apple is owned by the government?? Much like Walmart, Apple is a business open to the public, but is controlled by and answers to shareholders. Being open to the public does not make them a public entity. And also, corporations are people too, friend. It's funny when the status quo given to us by the right (money = speech; corporations = people) comes back to bite them in the ***.
Last edited:
Exactly the thought I had when reading about the advertisers leaving: they are businesses worried that it will affect their brand image by staying involved (INCLUDING Apple). Why would any business want to stick around for all the chaos Musk buying Twitter has caused in the “public” society.
Musk hides behind fake polls, because he is such an over privileged coward. Just say what you think and stop blaming ‘other’ people.
Apple has cut back on its Twitter advertising, according to Twitter CEO Elon Musk. In a tweet, Musk said that Apple has "mostly stopped" its Twitter ads, asking if Apple hates "free speech."
Musk went on to publish a poll asking if Apple should "publish all censorship actions" taken that impact customers and he began retweeting content from companies that Apple has had moderation discussions with. He also retweeted the 1984 parody video from Epic Games that suggested Apple has an App Store monopoly.
Since Musk took over Twitter, advertisers have been pulling back on Twitter-based ad campaigns because of Musk's approach to moderation and the re-enabling of previously suspended and banned accounts, such as that of former U.S. President Donald Trump.
Musk eliminated more than half of Twitter employees over the course of the last few weeks, including many who handled policy creation and content moderation. This has caused issues with advertisers, especially after the bungled launch of the $8 Twitter Blue subscription that included account verification. Twitter users quickly learned they could pay $8 to impersonate high-profile accounts and companies, leading to chaos on the platform.
Last week, nonprofit organization Media Matters released a report suggesting Twitter has lost half of its top 100 advertisers. These advertisers spent $2 billion in 2020 and more than $750 million in 2022, so Twitter is facing notable losses in ad revenue. Companies like AT&T, CNN, Dell, Allstate, DirecTV, HP, Nestle, Coca-Cola, Verizon, General Mills, Volkswagen, Wells Fargo, and others are no longer running Twitter ads.
Musk has attempted to persuade advertisers to remain on the platform, going as far as personally calling the CEOs of some brands, according to Financial Times. Musk has been "berating" companies that have pulled out of Twitter ads, leading some to reduce spending to a bare minimum to "avoid further confrontation" with Musk, who has been championing "free speech" and "civil debate" on the platform.
Apple App Store chief Phil Schiller deactivated his Twitter account following Musk's takeover, a signal that Apple executives are not pleased with the direction that Twitter is heading, which could lead to additional clashes over moderation in the future. Last Friday, Musk commented on Apple's App Store policies, giving some insight into what might happen if content on Twitter grows problematic. Musk has confirmed that Apple is "making moderation demands" and has threatened to "withhold Twitter from its App Store."
Should Twitter get to the point where its lack of moderation causes Apple and Google to remove it from their stores, Musk said that he will "make an alternative phone." He said that it hopes "it does not come to that," but will do so if there is "no other choice."
Article Link: Elon Musk Claims Apple Has 'Mostly Stopped' Offering Ads on Twitter and Is Making Moderation Demands
This has literally nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is the ability to say anything without the government arresting you.
No company is required to advertise on a platform. Period. You don't have to advertise on Twitter just because it exists.
Musk attacking advertisers on his platform isn't free speech either. It's just an example of why Apple doesn't want to advertise there.
And it's not particularly smart. If you want to give a company a reason to not spend ad money on your product, publically shaming them is a good way to do that.
Speech isn't consequence-free even if the speech is free.
And as a reminder, conservatives fought hard to keep businesses from having to patronize people they disagree with. Don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple, you don't have to.
An openly gay CEO doesn't want to advertise on a platform that's aggressive and threatening to LGBT people, they don't have to. We have established case law in the US about this.