That has absolutely nothing to do with the number of staff. It is directly related to the ADL’s campaign of convincing advertisers to pull out. It appears there will be a lawsuit.
What about the ADL itself? Here’s their call to action against Facebook. Why wouldn’t they go after twitter… Oh wait they did barely one month after acquisition.
Sorry, I should have been less brief. I don’t deny that the ADL has been campaigning against xitter, I just hold extreme doubt that they are the main reason xitter lost half of its ad revenue. I think that is more likely caused by other factors.
Do you have insider knowledge of the _other factors_ you _think_ is more likely the cause of revenue loss? Isn’t almost all of twitters revenue pre paid blue check, advertising? Where else are they generating income? Wasn’t twitter losing money before? Has twitter ever been profitable?
I’ve linked to proof of boycotts and the ADLs position in convincing advertisers to drop twitter due to the ADLs “research.”
You provide nothing other than you opinion or assumption presented as fact. I digress, you can believe whatever you want to.
You've proved that the ADL is calling for an advertising boycott, which is a 1st amendment protected right. You haven't proven anything in regards to the effectiveness of that action.
Here's some vetted research from reputable institutions unconnected to any boycotts showing a demonstrable increase in hate speech on twitter https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.04129.pdf.
I don't have insider knowledge, but I would be perfectly willing to believe that advertisers find it untenable to risk advertising alongside hate-speech, or to be associated with a platform that has failed to signal that they won't tolerate hate speech, and as a result they have pulled their campaigns.
Whether that is because the ADL alerted them to the increase in hate speech, because it is their job to understand cultural phenomenon and trends, or because they have web browsers and eyes, I would not be able to tell.
> You've proved that the ADL is calling for an advertising boycott, which is a 1st amendment protected right.
The First Amendment is somewhat beside the point, since Elon is alleging that they are defaming him/Twitter. Defamatory speech is not protected by the First Amendment. So it's totally fine to call for a boycott — but totally actionable to call for a boycott using defamatory statements.
It will be difficult for Elon to prove defamation, since he is a public figure, of course.
The ADL is not powerful enough to cause a 50% drop in Twitter revenue…most businesses don’t care about what they say.
The reason for the drop is Musk’s erratic behavior. Advertisers paused or halted their spending entirely because Musk is known for making on-the-fly decisions, and businesses don’t want to get caught up in his latest antics.
I mean, Elon is also blaming the CCDH for his loss in advertising. He’s not exactly an unbiased source here. Just because he says it, doesn’t make it true.
Do you have any sources or insider knowledge that you can present that would put Elon himself on the hook for loss in advertising? I’ve replied to multiple comments citing ADL CCDH and others actively seeking to sway advertisers away from twitter using “research.”
Instead of presenting a counter argument with facts or data to back it up you resort to calling Elon a liar. It obviously shows your bias. You can believe whatever you want to believe.
elmu is a liar, thus him and his word simply can't be trusted
do you have any reliable sources or insider knowledge that you can present that would prove true these unreliable, unconvincing claims of an infamous liar?
it is actually a fact as determined by a court of law
but your opinion that he is not is cute
I imagine such silly, reality-denying opinions accompany the same derangement that drives a very small, very loud minority of people to shriek hate and "hate!" at everyone who points out that elmu is a notorious liar