Volkswagen tells brands to pause paid advertising on Twitter(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Volkswagen tells brands to pause paid advertising on Twitter
https://www.reuters.com/technology/volkswagen-tells-brands-pause-paid-activities-twitter-2022-11-04/
45 comments
This is the problem when you're the CEO of a ad platform and also of a car company and aerospace company. Are your competitors in those spaces willing to give their advertising dollars to your platform?
>The automobile industry accounted for 4.7 percent of digital advertising revenue in the country in 2021.
It definitely isn't great for Twitter as the auto industry is a large industry, but dont think this will be the thing that makes or break Twitter. I don't think aerospace companies even register in terms of online advertising dollars.
It definitely isn't great for Twitter as the auto industry is a large industry, but dont think this will be the thing that makes or break Twitter. I don't think aerospace companies even register in terms of online advertising dollars.
[deleted]
Easy choice for VW, its now owned by one of their competitors CEOs, and the platform is a PR disaster as well.
I'm pretty sure this isn't the reason. The CEO of VW continues to praise Elon Musk as a role model for the change in his company.
I assume it's more about evaluating if Twitter Ads are still worth their money, feeling social pressure to distance themselves and hey, they just got free positive press coverage!
its now owned by one of their competitors CEO
Interesting point.
We are closely monitoring the situation
Monitoring it for what? I'm genuinely not understanding why Twitter would be boycotted (at least yet)
Interesting point.
We are closely monitoring the situation
Monitoring it for what? I'm genuinely not understanding why Twitter would be boycotted (at least yet)
Advertisers are free to act in anticipation of what they think Elon will change, based on his comments and public persona, even if he hasn’t done anything yet.
Other than fire a shitton of people, which probably includes any account managers and sales engineers VW had personal relationships with at Twitter.
It's interesting as literally nothing has changed at Twitter yet. There's no reason to reduce advertising on Twitter yet.
Is that true? Public perception of Twitter seems to be declining. Let's assume people truly are dissatisfied and are leaving the platform. Why should advertisers be expected to spend their money on something that may not pay off?
If the dust settles and nothing has changed then they'll almost surely come back.
If the dust settles and nothing has changed then they'll almost surely come back.
Public perception is declining, but that's in spite of nothing having happened.
This looks more like a price negotiation: "pausing paid ads" instead of leaving the platform.
OT: Those image captions are weird - the first image of the VW logo has:
> A Volkswagen logo is seen on one of the German automaker's cars in a street in Sydney, Australia, October 8, 2015
The specificity seems out of place and smells of "AI" generation.
Any screen reader users who can share if this is helpful or just noise.
The specificity seems out of place and smells of "AI" generation.
Any screen reader users who can share if this is helpful or just noise.
It's like watching movies with closed captioning. You get extra cues you wouldn't normally hear or sea (eg. titles of the songs being played in the scenes or names of emotions expressed)
> OT: Those image captions are weird - the first image of the VW logo has: > A Volkswagen logo is seen on one of the German automaker's cars in a street in Sydney, Australia, October 8, 2015
> The specificity seems out of place and smells of "AI" generation.
It sounds more like a stock image description, generated from basic archival metadata. They have photojournalists and a photo archive, and I'm certain they're very careful to record date and location for all their photos to make archival use possible.
Reuters also does a lot of very pithy company reporting like this, I wonder if they collect catalogs of generic images related to this-or-that company to "illustrate" those articles. I bet there's some SEO need for it (e.g. an article with no image will be displayed in a far less attention-grabbing way). The second image of this three-paragraph article is a shot of logo on Twitter's headquarters from April.
> The specificity seems out of place and smells of "AI" generation.
It sounds more like a stock image description, generated from basic archival metadata. They have photojournalists and a photo archive, and I'm certain they're very careful to record date and location for all their photos to make archival use possible.
Reuters also does a lot of very pithy company reporting like this, I wonder if they collect catalogs of generic images related to this-or-that company to "illustrate" those articles. I bet there's some SEO need for it (e.g. an article with no image will be displayed in a far less attention-grabbing way). The second image of this three-paragraph article is a shot of logo on Twitter's headquarters from April.
I doubt it's an AI-generated caption. More likely it's just a file photo that nobody wrote a new caption for when preparing this particular article.
I don't think companies are capable of thinking freely out of fear of being cancelled. The only reason there doing it is because of social pressure no other reason. At certain point when does cancel culture stop.
Elon someone who has done more for society than 99.9% of people yet says a few controversial things every now and then so people hate him. I know 100% every person has said or done things that is considered not inline with the narrative.
As long as people aren't clearly threatening each other i see no reason cancel culture should exist. We have banks canceling peoples bank accounts because of a few words things are out of control. If you're not a perfect human being and follow the narrative 100% then you are removed from society.
Elon someone who has done more for society than 99.9% of people yet says a few controversial things every now and then so people hate him. I know 100% every person has said or done things that is considered not inline with the narrative.
As long as people aren't clearly threatening each other i see no reason cancel culture should exist. We have banks canceling peoples bank accounts because of a few words things are out of control. If you're not a perfect human being and follow the narrative 100% then you are removed from society.
I can't think of a single thing Elon has done to the benefit of society - it's all to the benefit of his personal wealth, sold to his cult-like following as "real life Tony Stark and Mother Theresa"-amalgation.
Builds cars to cement the status quo of the most inefficient and destructive mean of transport there is.
Hypes up futuristic potential, yet unrealistic long-distance transport to derail high-speed rail investments and projects.
Works on building his vision of space exploration which will become a huge environmental and technical liability for future generations when following his envisioned scale and goals.
Builds cars to cement the status quo of the most inefficient and destructive mean of transport there is.
Hypes up futuristic potential, yet unrealistic long-distance transport to derail high-speed rail investments and projects.
Works on building his vision of space exploration which will become a huge environmental and technical liability for future generations when following his envisioned scale and goals.
I guess saving the government billions of dollars in money that would have otherwise gone toward corporate graft and protectionism isn't a "benefit to society". Not to mention the extensive tax revenue that follows from the operation of his companies.
I don't really care about Elon Musk as a philanthropist or not. He's like a one-man Apple in that way.
But.
- The environmental problem with electric cars is undoubtedly due to the batteries, both the manufacturing and the fact that the cars are much heavier as a result. But the idea that without electric cars more people would choose for alternative modes of transport is a bit dumb. The cars are inherently luxury vehicles, and in many places, the infrastructure isn't there for a low-car/car-free lifestyle.
- You don't need hyperloop to derail high-speed rail investments and projects. Simple bureaucratic ineptitude and red tape will do that. Like that story of how SNCF pulled out of California and went and built trains in Morocco instead, which was cheaper and more efficient.
- What's a huge technical liability is a bloated govt space agency that takes decades to deliver projects at 100x the cost of what a commercial vendor can do, while all the people who originally built the tech are retired or about to. And all that cost isn't just money, it represents an enormous amount of time and resources spent. Chastizing SpaceX for rejuvenating the space industry seems pretty ridiculous.
It seems like you're just taking Musk as a convenient target to blame, because he should spend his resources more "wisely", but each of the examples you cite is actually due to an enormous systemic ineptitude elsewhere.
But.
- The environmental problem with electric cars is undoubtedly due to the batteries, both the manufacturing and the fact that the cars are much heavier as a result. But the idea that without electric cars more people would choose for alternative modes of transport is a bit dumb. The cars are inherently luxury vehicles, and in many places, the infrastructure isn't there for a low-car/car-free lifestyle.
- You don't need hyperloop to derail high-speed rail investments and projects. Simple bureaucratic ineptitude and red tape will do that. Like that story of how SNCF pulled out of California and went and built trains in Morocco instead, which was cheaper and more efficient.
- What's a huge technical liability is a bloated govt space agency that takes decades to deliver projects at 100x the cost of what a commercial vendor can do, while all the people who originally built the tech are retired or about to. And all that cost isn't just money, it represents an enormous amount of time and resources spent. Chastizing SpaceX for rejuvenating the space industry seems pretty ridiculous.
It seems like you're just taking Musk as a convenient target to blame, because he should spend his resources more "wisely", but each of the examples you cite is actually due to an enormous systemic ineptitude elsewhere.
[deleted]
Cancel culture is free speech. No government made VW take this action, did they?
Cancel culture is a circumvention of democracy and justice. No trials, no votes - just a handful of loudest, most reactionary people stamping their feet and screaming until they get what they want.
Yes, free speech allows cancel culture to exist, but that in itself doesn't make it good.
Yes, free speech allows cancel culture to exist, but that in itself doesn't make it good.
>Cancel culture is a circumvention of democracy and justice. No trials, no votes - just a handful of loudest, most reactionary people stamping their feet and screaming until they get what they want.
Yes, we call that a free society. People have the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of association, and are allowed to exercise those rights without government intermediation. Those rights even allow people to try to influence other people's behavior, or put public pressure on them in order to attempt to enforce social norms or push a political agenda outside the realm of voting or a court of law.
>Yes, free speech allows cancel culture to exist, but that in itself doesn't make it good.
So you don't believe in free speech, you just believe in freedom for the speech you agree with.
Yes, we call that a free society. People have the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of association, and are allowed to exercise those rights without government intermediation. Those rights even allow people to try to influence other people's behavior, or put public pressure on them in order to attempt to enforce social norms or push a political agenda outside the realm of voting or a court of law.
>Yes, free speech allows cancel culture to exist, but that in itself doesn't make it good.
So you don't believe in free speech, you just believe in freedom for the speech you agree with.
> So you don't believe in free speech, you just believe in freedom for the speech you agree with.
If cancel culture is freedom of speech, that would imply that KiwiFarms was also freedom of speech. Both are just "exercising their rights to try to influence other people's behavior".
Cancel culture is short-sighted and influenced by sensationalism more than actual facts. It has an extreme chilling effect on the society. Truth is sometimes controversial at first, and cancel culture rids the society of those controversial thoughts that may sometimes be true. Ignoring the effects because "free speech means anyone can do whatever" will eventually lead to a society where there de-facto will be no free speech, at least no free speech which goes against the narrative.
If cancel culture is freedom of speech, that would imply that KiwiFarms was also freedom of speech. Both are just "exercising their rights to try to influence other people's behavior".
Cancel culture is short-sighted and influenced by sensationalism more than actual facts. It has an extreme chilling effect on the society. Truth is sometimes controversial at first, and cancel culture rids the society of those controversial thoughts that may sometimes be true. Ignoring the effects because "free speech means anyone can do whatever" will eventually lead to a society where there de-facto will be no free speech, at least no free speech which goes against the narrative.
KiwiFarms was freedom of speech, vile as they were, and I believe they got what they deserved. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, nor does it guarantee a platform.
> I believe they got what they deserved
To have their freedom of speech stifled? Fairly ironic considering your comment:
> So you don't believe in free speech, you just believe in freedom for the speech you agree with.
(Yes, yes, I'm aware they weren't arrested - they were just banned off the internet. Legally speaking, you're in the right.)
Anyways, yes, freedom of speech allows cancel culture to exist. Your argument seems to be along the lines of "whatever happens, happens" - as in, majority is right; if people decide to cancel you, you probably deserved it, and your free speech wasn't stifled. And it wasn't - US-legally speaking.
But I disagree with that notion, considering how cancel culture can cause damage comparable to being arrested. But that's just my opinion, eh?
To have their freedom of speech stifled? Fairly ironic considering your comment:
> So you don't believe in free speech, you just believe in freedom for the speech you agree with.
(Yes, yes, I'm aware they weren't arrested - they were just banned off the internet. Legally speaking, you're in the right.)
Anyways, yes, freedom of speech allows cancel culture to exist. Your argument seems to be along the lines of "whatever happens, happens" - as in, majority is right; if people decide to cancel you, you probably deserved it, and your free speech wasn't stifled. And it wasn't - US-legally speaking.
But I disagree with that notion, considering how cancel culture can cause damage comparable to being arrested. But that's just my opinion, eh?
>To have their freedom of speech stifled?
Yes, I disagree with the publishing of speech that includes harassment, doxxing and driving people to suicide out of prejudice and hatred, and I believe Kiwifarms was doing real and legitimate harm, and that businesses and society have the right to disassociate from them. I'm not a free speech absolutist, you caught me.
>Your argument seems to be along the lines of "whatever happens, happens" - as in, majority is right; if people decide to cancel you, you probably deserved it, and your free speech wasn't stifled. And it wasn't - US-legally speaking.
No, that isn't actually my argument at all. My argument is that society has to have limits to what it tolerates otherwise the intolerant inevitably take over, and that it's legitimate for the people (less so government) to limit freedom of speech in some cases, if only by choosing not to associate with it. Can this possibly be used for evil? Yes - one could (and people have, ad nauseum) argue the same principle applies to society limiting things like feminist, civil rights and pro LGBT speech. Is it, in all cases, an unqualified evil? No.
One cannot apply universal moral qualifiers to freedoms. Consequences can be justified in some cases and unjustified in others. Freedoms can do good in some contexts, and harm in others. "Cancel culture" isn't always simply a frothing angry mob, and speech rejected by society isn't always uncomfortable truth the system is too afraid to hear. Sometimes you're just an asshole and people show you the door. You seem to think that's a crime, but it's just life.
"But who gets to decide what speech is harmful and what is good?" I can hear you typing, because this site is hell and we're cursed to reiterate the same futile conversation over and over again until the end of time, and the answer is "everyone." I have my personal beliefs, you have yours. My culture has its beliefs, yours has its own. The law proscribes limits, as do private platforms. The law can be just, and the law can be unjust. Platforms may be biased and inconsistent. Yes, that is messy, and imperfect, and subjective, and prone to error and controversy, and we will probably never agree on where the lines should be placed, but at the end of the day we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Yes, I disagree with the publishing of speech that includes harassment, doxxing and driving people to suicide out of prejudice and hatred, and I believe Kiwifarms was doing real and legitimate harm, and that businesses and society have the right to disassociate from them. I'm not a free speech absolutist, you caught me.
>Your argument seems to be along the lines of "whatever happens, happens" - as in, majority is right; if people decide to cancel you, you probably deserved it, and your free speech wasn't stifled. And it wasn't - US-legally speaking.
No, that isn't actually my argument at all. My argument is that society has to have limits to what it tolerates otherwise the intolerant inevitably take over, and that it's legitimate for the people (less so government) to limit freedom of speech in some cases, if only by choosing not to associate with it. Can this possibly be used for evil? Yes - one could (and people have, ad nauseum) argue the same principle applies to society limiting things like feminist, civil rights and pro LGBT speech. Is it, in all cases, an unqualified evil? No.
One cannot apply universal moral qualifiers to freedoms. Consequences can be justified in some cases and unjustified in others. Freedoms can do good in some contexts, and harm in others. "Cancel culture" isn't always simply a frothing angry mob, and speech rejected by society isn't always uncomfortable truth the system is too afraid to hear. Sometimes you're just an asshole and people show you the door. You seem to think that's a crime, but it's just life.
"But who gets to decide what speech is harmful and what is good?" I can hear you typing, because this site is hell and we're cursed to reiterate the same futile conversation over and over again until the end of time, and the answer is "everyone." I have my personal beliefs, you have yours. My culture has its beliefs, yours has its own. The law proscribes limits, as do private platforms. The law can be just, and the law can be unjust. Platforms may be biased and inconsistent. Yes, that is messy, and imperfect, and subjective, and prone to error and controversy, and we will probably never agree on where the lines should be placed, but at the end of the day we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
> Yes, I disagree with the publishing of speech that includes harassment, doxxing and driving people to suicide out of prejudice and hatred
Isn't this exactly what cancel culture does?
> "But who gets to decide what speech is harmful and what is good?" I can hear you typing, because this site is hell and we're cursed to reiterate the same futile conversation over and over again until the end of time, and the answer is "everyone."
So - again - you believe that the majority is always right?
Isn't this exactly what cancel culture does?
> "But who gets to decide what speech is harmful and what is good?" I can hear you typing, because this site is hell and we're cursed to reiterate the same futile conversation over and over again until the end of time, and the answer is "everyone."
So - again - you believe that the majority is always right?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Just because something is free speech doesn't mean it isn't also one or more of: abusive, incorrect, spiteful, vengeful, misguided or capable of being influenced in directions very poor for society.
The problem with cancel culture is not a free speech. It is an action, based on external pressure. Same way as "nice business you have there, would be unfortunate, if something happened to it".
Except it is the speech of those pressuring the company that is free. I can tell a company that supports things I don't agree with that I won't be a customer. If enough of customers vote with their wallets, the company will change it's policies because it cares about profit.
No one is obligated to give either their money or attention to Elon Musk, or to third parties that are perceived to support Musk's companies.
No one is obligated to give either their money or attention to Elon Musk, or to third parties that are perceived to support Musk's companies.
> If enough of customers vote with their wallets, the company will change it's policies because it cares about profit.
The problem is, that it is not customers doing it. That would be classic boycott.
It is pressure on supply chain, to isolate "misbehaving" company.
Similar to racketeering.
> No one is obligated to give either their money or attention to Elon Musk, or to third parties that are perceived to support Musk's companies.
That's OK. But this is not about giving money or attention to Elon Musk. It is about pressuring others not giving money or attention to Elon Musk. And if you don't comply, you will be isolated too.
The problem is, that it is not customers doing it. That would be classic boycott.
It is pressure on supply chain, to isolate "misbehaving" company.
Similar to racketeering.
> No one is obligated to give either their money or attention to Elon Musk, or to third parties that are perceived to support Musk's companies.
That's OK. But this is not about giving money or attention to Elon Musk. It is about pressuring others not giving money or attention to Elon Musk. And if you don't comply, you will be isolated too.
So companies are allowed to cancel peoples bank accounts because of a few words. The difference is companies aren't doing this because they want too. There scared and can't make decisions.
If one person in a boardroom says Elon is this or Kanye is this we can't do business with him and if you don't agree with me then you are labeled as them. So everyone falls in line out of fear of being cancelled.
You really think Adidas wanted to lose 40% of there revenue because of a tweet. They don't care what Kanye tweeted they would keep him if they knew they wouldn't get cancelled.
It's detrimental to society because it is just the beginning and will be used as a tool for people to get what they want which isn't always going to be good things in the future.
What ever happen to business is business. It's now turned into companies running social justice campaigns out if fear. I mean really were talking about things that are not that big of a deal.
If one person in a boardroom says Elon is this or Kanye is this we can't do business with him and if you don't agree with me then you are labeled as them. So everyone falls in line out of fear of being cancelled.
You really think Adidas wanted to lose 40% of there revenue because of a tweet. They don't care what Kanye tweeted they would keep him if they knew they wouldn't get cancelled.
It's detrimental to society because it is just the beginning and will be used as a tool for people to get what they want which isn't always going to be good things in the future.
What ever happen to business is business. It's now turned into companies running social justice campaigns out if fear. I mean really were talking about things that are not that big of a deal.
Yes, I really think Adidas, a company with a not so great history of being founded by former members of the Nazi party, wanted to cut ties with an anti-semite.
Yes, peoples actions should have consequences, that is the whole point of free speech. Bring speech forward, and reward speech we support and discourage speech we don't, and let the market of ideas decide. Do you not believe in free speech and free markets? The market of ideas?
Yes, peoples actions should have consequences, that is the whole point of free speech. Bring speech forward, and reward speech we support and discourage speech we don't, and let the market of ideas decide. Do you not believe in free speech and free markets? The market of ideas?
So if you own a small business and one of your accounts makes up 40% of your business. And the owner tweeted one controversial tweet, your going to cancel the account and not do business with them. 100% no and no one would. It's entirely out of fear adidas did it plain and simple. People who don't want his shoes don't have to buy them but i can guarantee one tweet wouldn't have affected his sales at all. Which proves the people canceling aren't the ones who buy his product anyways. That's the point.
Re-stating your premise doesn't prove your point.
It's also entirely possible that Adidas decided that the overhead of dealing with public backlash + the fact that Kanye himself is unstable meant that the brand was no longer a long-term investment, and given that understanding, they made the call to cut it cleanly at once.
"Cancel Culture" is a bullshit term for "accountability"
It's also entirely possible that Adidas decided that the overhead of dealing with public backlash + the fact that Kanye himself is unstable meant that the brand was no longer a long-term investment, and given that understanding, they made the call to cut it cleanly at once.
"Cancel Culture" is a bullshit term for "accountability"
You know I am right that's you won't answer the question. You would really eliminate 40% of your business over a tweet. Ye merchandise would sell the same because nobody really cares about the tweet there just scared to get cancelled. Sales would be the exact same. No sane person wipes out 40% of there business unless there just scared. Cancel culture is toxic and bad for society.
Sorry that cancel culture (i.e. People using their speech to speak out about what they are not ok with) is impacting the market for anti-semitism so badly. What do you propose, government forced business contracts for anti-semites? Feel free to add a clause to all of your future contracts:
'parties my not break business ties should one party to this contract post highly publicized anti-semitic statements'. There you go. Iron clad protection from cancel culture, all in a free market way without government involvement.
'parties my not break business ties should one party to this contract post highly publicized anti-semitic statements'. There you go. Iron clad protection from cancel culture, all in a free market way without government involvement.
Adidas took that action out of self interest. Claiming that they didn't want to do it is beside the point.