"And the whole world will know that those advertisers killed the company," he added ominously, "and we will document it in great detail."

When something goes well, it's Elon "I know more about manufacturing than any person on this planet" Musk who is personally responsible. When it goes badly, it's all the fault of those evil people who won't let the self-entitled man-child do whatever he wants without consequence.

Note that this is the man who told us they would land two Starships on Mars right around now, but has apparently just begun yet another significant redesign of their rather explodey rocket. The man who has been claiming self-driving cars were going to be generally available "next year" every year for the last ten years... and the man who announced he was buying Twitter to "stop the bots"... yeah, how is that going?

At what point do people start to realise he is a technical incompetent held up by spending other people's money on unfortunate workers smarter than he is?

I certainly agree that his personality traits quickly come to the fore: he loves to attack, makes insincere apologies only when he thinks he has to, and quickly goes back on them.

What investors should worry about is that the companies who are withdrawing their accounts now, are the ones with the beancounters telling them to do so. Those with a conscience left a long time ago. Those who stayed, stayed because they thought it was still good business. Having seen a couple of commercial presentations from Twitter I at least understand the pitch they were trying to make. It was sketchy then and that was, for better or worse, when it had a near monopoly in some areas: politics, fashion, music. Fashion and music have left, leaving pretty much only the politicians and lazy journos. Difficult to see Disney's or IBM's target audience being there.

> Difficult to see Disney's or IBM's target audience being there.

Even if they aren't currently buying ads, both companies still have Twitter / X accounts. Why do you suppose that is?

So that nobody with a few dollars in their pocket can impersonate them and launch a free laptop or a free week stay at Disneyland resort for every like, follow and retweet?

Because keeping open an account is free, and it takes more work than shutting one down, and because they probably wrote a bot to make social media announcements on a variety of platforms about a decade ago and don't see any reason they should take Twitter off that list. Whether they have an account or not isn't doing much for Twitter's revenue, certainly not as much as their advertising was. Maybe it will keep some users on the platform, but I don't think that many were hotly anticipating the next Tweet from IBM.

Because keeping open an account is free

Yeah, no. Disney and IBM are paying monthly for their gold corporate "verified" status accounts.

> Yeah, no. Disney and IBM are paying monthly for their gold corporate "verified" status accounts.

Which is peanuts compared to the spend on advertising....

Which I believe was teh original point: keeping account open $$$ << advertising $$$

There's also no guarantee they'll keep doing that, rather than keeping the accounts sans "verification". The accounts can be free, and when a company has already decided to stop paying for advertising, the question of why we still pay for that gold mark has got to come up soon. It won't be immediately, since they've made their decisions about advertising very recently and corporate inertia is certainly a thing, but I wouldn't count on them staying gold mark customers either.

Even if they aren't currently buying ads, both companies still have Twitter / X accounts. Why do you suppose that is?

That's why this is so much fun! MM fakes 'news', Disney and IBM buy it, and flounce off from X in a huff. Partly. But they still have accounts there because that's where the eyeballs are. Disney desperately needs eyeballs, if viewing figures for it's Marvels & Dr Who garbage are anything to go by. People increasingly aren't buying what they're selling, and Budweiser's lost almost as much as X trying to sell tranny fluid. The woke are fleeing X for.. somewhere that advertisers can't reach, and might be being replaced on Twitter by the unwoke that aren't buying what the ESG peddlers are selling. The world slowly seems to be waking up to the ESG garbage.

So if nothing else, Musk is providing better entertainment than Disney has been for the last decade. And he has a point. Kinda like Nestle, and people that boycott that company because of ethical concerns. Or people who might boycott IBM because of their age discrimination. Perhaps Musk will only accept ethical advertisers, and adverts. For now at least, Musk can afford to do this kind of stuff.

Just out of curiosity... what does being a professional troll pay these days? Does Twitler pay better than Russia?

Just out of curiosity... what does being a professional troll pay these days? Does Twitler pay better than Russia?

I dunno, what does being a concern troll pay? I just like the way Musk points out people are trying to blackmail him to increase censorship and deny free speech. He said something about companies have the appearence of being nice, but doing evil. He has a point. Pre-Musk, Twitter censored many things. Pre-Twitter, Musk was a darling of the left. He was building EVs, and solar, and the lefty media couldn't get enough of him and gave his companies millions in free publicity. Then he bought Twitter, brought down the echo chamber, slayed the sacred cows and the worms turned.

And people are still missing the point. MM had to go to considerable efforts to manufacture their story, and if Musk is right, this would be far from a normal user experience. MM chose to follow some right wing accounts, they saw some right wing posts. Ohnoes! Cue instant outrage to ban this filth and deplatform Twitter. But here's a crazy idea. Find accounts posting stuff you don't agree with? Don't follow them.

Instead, the 'liberals' want them banned! They really hate the idea of free speech.

blackmail… censorship… sacred cows… MM… liberals… free speech… lefty media…

Oh, mate…

"Instead, the 'liberals' want them banned! They really hate the idea of free speech."

And, companies want advertising venues that fit with their narrative of sweetness and unicorns even if they are complete bastages. If major advertisers are loath to place ads someplace where they are likely to have their ads shown on the same page as some anti-Semitic tirade, they'll look for someplace else. They don't want the association even if it's only a subconscious thing. If you often see ads for Coke next to scenes of war, it's not long before you start making an association even if you don't know that's what you are doing.

If Elon wants to have his own personal soap box to say whatever he likes and bring along others that agree with him, that's fine. He should pay off the loans and settle up with the Middle Eastern wealth fund and run the whole thing as a non-profit. It could be a tidy tax write-off. If the goal is to keep it a commercial enterprise, he has to cater to the people most likely to pay him, in other words, customers. The users are just the product being served up.

If major advertisers are loath to place ads someplace where they are likely to have their ads shown on the same page as some anti-Semitic tirade

You're rather missing the point. This all exploded due to 'Media Matters' fabricating a story. According to the filing, advertisers were extremely unlikely to find their ads placed there, and MM had to go to great lengths to get their smoking gun. Then blasted it all over the MSM, who promptly demonstrated their own confirmation bias. Musk is evil! Burn the witch!

But that's the genius of the blackmail. If IBM did nothing, MM might blast out another press release claiming IBM funds nazis. Which is probably the situation right now. The advertisers initially said they were pulling their ads 'while they investigate', but the anti-Musk and anti-free speech mob want that to be permanent. Minitruth must be brought into existence, and controlled by the right sort of 'fact checkers'.

So basically what you're saying is, is that the pay is shite, but you've burned basically every other bridge and its the only job you can get anymore.

So basically what you're saying is, is that the pay is shite, but you've burned basically every other bridge and its the only job you can get anymore.

A very strange inference, aerogums. Maybe I don't need the money? I'm sure being pro-free speech pays a lot less than anti-free speech 'fact checkers' pays. But why would anyone pay me anyway, if I'm simply expressing my own opinions? Have you by any chance looked at how much the 'non-profit' bosses at Media Matters pay themselves, or where their money comes from? Still, if Musk wants to bung some money my way, I'd probably take it. I agree with him when it comes to protecting free speech, but I disagree with him on other matters.

"Even if they aren't currently buying ads, both companies still have Twitter / X accounts. Why do you suppose that is?"

1) In the case of IBM, they are likely cruising for an opportunity to sue X some reason. Sooner or later they'll find a patent violation. It's only a matter of patience and time.

2) Disney? Who knows? Maybe The Mouse has an untreated Twitter addiction.

I certainly agree that his personality traits quickly come to the fore: he loves to attack, makes insincere apologies only when he thinks he has to, and quickly goes back on them.

Sounds a lot like tRump, dunnit?

" tRump "

Is that what "sorry I haven't a clue"'s "Uxbridge English dictionary" might define as a Yorkshire man's backside?

apologies for those who can't tune in to BBC Radio 4, as for them the reference may fall flat

.

...a Yorkshire man's backside?

aka an arse, which Trump most definitely is.

"aka an arse, which Trump most definitely is."

He's no saint, but what politician is? I shudder to think what the US would be like had Hillary gained office and I have questions about who is running Joe Biden as he often makes comments that shows he has no clue where he is or what he's supposed to be parroting. The biggest problem in US politics right now is a total lack of good choices. I expect that many other places are the same.

>I shudder to think what the US would be like had Hillary gained office

She would have had the balls to invade Canada and deal with the menace of geese once and for all

Beat me to it, I was going with:

"Psst, Elon, quick, run for president! -- Satan"

Mercifully, he is ineligible to ever run for POTUS as he is not a native born citizen. Highest office he could theoretically obtain is Speaker of the House. At least in the US. He could always fuck off to Mars and declare himself the Omnissiah.

"He could always fuck off to Mars and declare himself the Omnissiah."

Given the success rate of Starship, I wish he'd give that a try.

"And the whole world will know that those advertisers killed the company,"

"Look what you made me do!!!" - typical abuser.

The whole world minus one will know who killed the company.

The only surprising thing is that it hasn't gone already.

He clearly copied that from his master Donald 'I know more about taxes than anyone...' Trump.

He has said that many times.

The pupil has learned his lessons very well.

As for Social Media... Neither of them are experts. TBH, I hope both go TITSUP ASAP.

He's certainly smarter than Trump, but it's exactly the same game plan that you've described.

When all is good - "It was me!"

When all is bad - "It's you!"

Very child like, but unfortunately for the world, it has repercussions.

When these big babies throw their toys, it echoes.

I guess it's always been the same. Perhaps Genghis Khan was just a big man-child, Hitler too.

Putin certainly is.

Maybe it's a trait wedded to that level of greatness or notoriety - that level of drive.

"I'm a gonna show all of them, just watch me!" - like a child chastised who wants to exact revenge.

Monsters, basically. A certain kind of intelligence and drive that propels them to the top, but lacking ... humanity. No empathy. Broken, basically.

A child can be born physically deformed and it's obvious. If they are lucky, they can propel themselves forwards and enjoy a good life.

A child can be born pretty much a moron, same outcome.

But what of children born with a brain deformity that isn't picked up? Super intelligent, but completely lacking some kind of empathy gene?

Nothing holds them back, nothing at all, because they don't actually give a fuck.

They mimic that side of human behaviour - cloak themselves.

That's Musk.

God help us all.

Strangely over the years I've run into smart asses like muskie.... the high IQ types, and all of them have personality disorders of some kind or other

we're not talking the 120-135 IQ level who generally end up being lawyers or doctors and fit in quite well, we're talking the 145+ crowd.

They ranged from bipolar, to someone who cant hold a job down due to terminal honesty, to an utter perfectionist, to the smartest person I know of... who is permanently sectioned to protect society.

My belief is that the high IQ types need just as much help while growing up as any below 70 IQ kid, otherwise they grow up into a musk (or worse)

"Strangely over the years I've run into smart asses like muskie.... the high IQ types, and all of them have personality disorders of some kind or other"

That really casts doubts as to whether standardized IQ ratings are valid. What's really being measured and is it any good indicator about a person? I expect that Fritz Haber had a very high IQ.

At what point do people start to realise he is a technical incompetent held up by spending other people's money on unfortunate workers smarter than he is?

While his personality traits are , let's say, deplorable, he has been able to execute on dreams that others have tried and failed utterly at. He's done it with way less money than others wasted. He has made (or backed up), big calls that proved his judgement right, and he has been able to carry them through to fruition.

Misses don't negate the hits (midget subs anyone?).

He will be seen as having personally driven some improbable success as very few others have, and his apparent descent into ineffectual craziness (c.f. Howard Hughes, N Tesla) is going to be a tragic loss really. Sadness is overwhelming schadenfreude.

At what point do people start to realise he is a technical incompetent held up by spending other people's money on unfortunate workers smarter than he is?

While his personality traits are , let's say, deplorable, he has been able to execute on dreams that others have tried and failed utterly at. He's done it with way less money than others wasted failing to do the same. He has made (or backed up), big calls that proved his judgement right, and he has been able to carry them through to fruition.

Misses don't negate the hits (midget subs anyone?).

He will be seen as having personally driven some improbable success as very few others have, and his apparent descent into ineffectual craziness (c.f. Howard Hughes, N Tesla) is going to be a tragic loss really.

I find sadness is overwhelming schadenfreude.

The man clearly has some mental problems.

I thought that already been established by Musk himself ?

He claims to be autistic, though that isn't a "mental problem". If he is, it doesn't seem all that relevant compared to him being a bell-end.

He's not autistic, he's a twunt.

"He's not autistic, he's a twunt."

Have an upvote. Several, in fact.

It would have to be some atypical, even among atypical cases, of autism. Honestly, the whole thing is just a giant slap in the face to actual autistic people who are already misunderstood enough.

nobody wanting to advertise or even use the platform

this is contrary to my observation : the more advertisement there is, the less I personally use it. I have all ad-blockers and UBlock origin and the like, and if a site refuses to show me their page because of that, I don't deactivate my ad-blocker but simply go away. Somehow the author seems to conflate that if users stop seeing ads they somehow will stop using a site.

That being said, I don't use Twitter (nor any other social media), and ElReg doesn't show me any ads.

It's not that punters want to see ads, it's that ads pay for the service the punters want to use.

No, ads pay for yachts, rockets, mansions, other business ventures... the service is probably at the tail end.

And squeezed in between are the few he really needs who are now demanding money up-front.

Yup, there's a household name DIY product manufacturer in the UK who won't let you onto their site if you have an adblocker enabled.

So I bought a competitor's product instead.

That applies to any site that I visit.

If you want to slurp my data or show me ads that are never relevant then you can FSCK off. There is always an alternative and they are often cheaper.

"That applies to any site that I visit."

It's amazing that they don't get the concept that if I've gone to the trouble to look at their web site, chances are better than even I'll buy their product. The last thing they should be doing is throwing up some reason for me to go and look at their competitor. If their business plan has a heavy dose of data harvesting, I'm not interested in doing business with them.

The new fiber internet company in the area chased me off by wanting to run a credit check and was asking for things like my date of birth. That pretty much ended that. If I didn't pay the bill, a whole $50, they could just shut off service so what's with the credit check? It's not like I could rack up charges against the account for outside services. They could be rather strict about on-time payments for the first year too if they like. I own the house so it's not like I'll be picking up and moving with no notice. Whether I rented or owned was a question not asked.

I'm not conflating anything. I'm saying that advertisers don't want to advertise next to 4chan content, and Twitter users don't want to see 4chan content. If you do, just go to 4chan.

No one wants to see advertisements, but since they made up the bulk of Twitter's revenue, it seems pretty counterproductive to turn the platform into a free-for-all then tell the money men to fuck themselves.

Bingo.

"No one wants to see advertisements, but since they made up the bulk of Twitter's revenue, it seems pretty counterproductive to turn the platform into a free-for-all then tell the money men to fuck themselves."

This is like Disney's theme parks. They screen people at the gate so "youths" wearing gang attire or packing weapons aren't admitted. They also have a large discreet security force to quell and remove any disturbances in the park. People that change clothes once inside, take off shirts, etc are shown the side gate and very distinctly told to never return. If Disney didn't preserve its fun and safe atmosphere, families would stay away and those are the people spending large quantities of money when they visit. A free-for-all would put them out of business in a week or less. TL:DR, They cater to the people giving them the most money.

I use similar language when dealing with adversaries, but I wouldn't be so stupid to think that my company was ENTITLED to the money from those advertising clients. That's this megalomaniac's problem in this context. They don't owe him shit, and have a right to disassociate their brand from his negative platform.