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
Those accounts did nothing to be suspended, Elon himself replied to some far right neo-Nazi’s who lied about those people and Elon without even looking into whether their claim were actionable banned them. And at the same time he’s brought back all sorts of vile people who should have stayed banned.
You can look up Elons own tweets, I’m not giving those people anymore publicity, and from the looks of things, I think they have have quit a few fans here.
Here's an example:
Elon reinstated Brett Stevens who previously praised the mass murder of 77 people in Norway by Anders Breivik. Now the same guy is advocating for genocidal policies and forced removal of ethnic groups.
Is this not hate speech?
Attachments
Well i know a few for sure who are. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
There is more to advertising than just pure eyeballs though. You have to judge if the people you are reaching are the mindset to purchase your wares.
To clarify the latter point i mean that Apple (or any advertiser) will be considering that if people are just going to Twitter to "pwn the Libs" or vice versa then it might not be the best time and place to put their ad.
Last edited:
I would happily ditch all my apple products to buy an Elon Phone if that is what it takes to save the most important basic human right called; Freedom of Speech. I’m not a fan of Elon Musk and Apple isn’t God. Tim Cook should step up to the plate and fix this! ASAP! Apple should support free speech! Period.
Hate speech existing in any legally enforceable way is just, like, your opinion, man.
Is the most important basic human right freedom of speech? I would have thought food and water and the right to exist might be higher on the list to be honest.
You see my friend, the amount of “Disagree” confirms exactly what you’re saying!
Yeah good luck with that - Microsoft, for example, poured billions into getting a foothold in the market with their Windows Phone (which was a very good OS with pretty good hardware).
It's just that there were so few apps, and the apps that were there, were generally of substandard quality. (That's what happens when you bribe developers into porting their apps - you generally get the bare minimum and no updates after).
When you don't have an installed user base on hundreds of millions, good luck getting developers to invest money and time into porting their apps to your platform. It's just not worth their while.
And if Elon were to decide to go the forked Android route, making a Twitter or Tesla branded phone would be easy.
The hard part would be losing access to the Google Play store, which is what happens when you don't play by Google's rules (ask Amazon about their Fire phone).
Outside of China, I’m not aware of any successful Android phones that don’t use the Google Play app store by default.
Many societies have had mass death and starvation caused by totalitarianism, ie lack of free speech.
The survey method is simple and deliberate. A *binary* choice between 2 juxtaposed options means when these ideas are opposing, which one takes precedence.
One group answers it is relatively *more important* for an expression to be safe/welcoming, than to be free.
When theres a book or media that an idea that is unsafe/unwelcoming, which group is more in favor of suppressing it?
Doesnt take advanced logic to see the answer right there in front of you.
So now disagreeing with someone is proof of trying shut them down? LOLOLOLOLOL 🤣
It seems that you've taken your victimhood to such delusional lengths that someone simply disagreeing with you looks and feels like you're being cancelled or shut down.
That's... concerning, mate.
Wrong. Libel and slander is prosecutable in most of the world.
Lies about business operations can be pursued by private business partners and counterparties.
If I spent ad money because a person says they have 1 billion users when its really 1 million, i have grounds to sue. If that person is a partner and acts in a way that deliberately damages my share of the business, i have grounds to sue.
Mate, you really just demonstrated you don't understand the basics of free speech.
Firstly, Apple is exercising their freedom to not advertise on Twitter.
Apple is exercising their right to moderate their own private property (the App Store).
Are you really arguing against the freedom of choice for individuals and companies? Sounds really free.
Second, Free speech only applies to the government. It does not apply to individuals or companies. See Apple's actions above, which are protected by... you guessed it, free speech.
Third, free speech isn't the free-for-all you seem to think it is.
Free speech does not protect hate speech, defamation, inciting violence, or supporting terrorism, to name a few.
These all lie outside the protections of free speech.
Fourth, free speech does not mean free of consequences.
Part of free speech is to choose to criticize or disagree with someone and for them to criticize you back. An employer, for instance, is within their rights to fire you if you say something inappropriate.
Last edited:
Well done. It's really baffling that these things need to be spelled out to people.
So many think free speech means being free of all consequences.
Come to think of it, that would explain a large proportion of comments here on MR
More users with less ads means more cost with less revenue. Most of those new registrations are alt-right maga folks, no one wants to advertise to jingoistic right wing nationalists except the people in their own echo chamber - and I dont think the my pillow guy is a decent substitute for Apple re:advertising dollars
Could legit be the copyright enforcement outage that Musk’s remaining staff have been struggling to fix