X advertisers stay away as CEO defends Musk’s “go f*** yourself” interview
"Elon's interview was candid and profound," Yaccarino writes in memo to staff.
Person hired as meat puppet mouth piece for owner continues to defend owner.
Details at 11.
For $6 Million a year, fuck yeah I'd consider it myself. You don't even look bad if you fuck it up because the world's richest fuckwit outshines every possible fuck up every step of the way.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
Yaccarino said she is "immensely proud to lead this company," and told employees they should feel the same. "You're at X because you have the courage and conviction to build and operationalize the most consequential platform that exists. That's quite an enviable position to be in," Yaccarino wrote.
Meanwhile in March...
Elon Musk fires senior Twitter employee who slept in office to meet deadlines
It's almost as if they will say anything.
Let’s be real, you’re at X because you’re on a visa and can’t leave without being kicked out of the country.
Yay import labor to lower internal ability of workers to negotiate for the sake of larger global control!
Yep, it's like it's her generously compensating job compels her or something.
Who'd have thunk it?
(For real though, what did people expect her to say?)
operationalize
they workshopped it and found that the word had the right balance of motivation & positive vibes while conveying little meaning.
You think every english teacher ever is just giving up? We dont seem interested in using this language very well.
😂
Quick! Be proud to work there before you're laid off.
She's a pathetic weasel who gets paid handsomely to talk absolute horseshit and shill for her boss.
And this is an actual thing - spokespeople are generally female now as we as humans have a greater capacity for empathy and more inherent respect for women. At one point spokes people were all men… And nowadays, even the most evil companies push the women out front so that they can be a bit more evil for a just a little bit longer before the shit hits the fan.
Basically evil people, male and female, will still do the same shit, lying dishonest job, so long as they are paid for it. We just cut the women a lot more slack.
Imagine if your job was to defend this over-privileged man-child.
These sycophants never get the reward they dream of either. They always just get tossed aside at the first slip up.
They always just get tossed aside at the first slip up.
... with a bonus of a few billion.
Unless if they're a Trump sycophant.
i dont understand the second word in your second sentance. Is that a name of an alien? Like xenomorph? What does it look like?
sycophant /sĭk′ə-fənt, sī′kə-/ noun
undefined
A person who attempts to gain advantage by flattering influential people or behaving in a servile manner. A tale-bearer or informer in general. A parasite; a mean flatterer; especially, a flatterer of princes and great men.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
I'm amazed at this shitty comment.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sycophant
In this case, either:
One who uses obsequious compliments to gain self-serving favour or advantage from another; a servile flatterer
or
One who seeks to gain through the powerful and influential
Advertisers, please do this to YouTube too. I need the dislike count back.
There's a browser extension for that: https://www.pcmag.com/news/browser-extension-brings-back-dislike-count-to-youtube-videos
By the way, where's the clarification that Musk said he should've posted? He endorsed a white supremicist conspiracy (on accident, surely!). Called it foolish -- no, not because he endorsed Nazis, but because now his haters have more ammo. (???) Half a month has passed. It's petty, because I wouldn't believe his story even if it were airtight, but he could at least try.
Lol you know he’d just double down. You can tell because he doesn’t say ‘what I said was wrong’ he says: ‘I should have said more’.
He apparently posted something, which said he was talking about the first part and wasn't really paying attention to the second part and didn't agree with that.
Which might even be true but would still suck
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Musk spoke about two weeks after he posted a favorable response to an antisemitic tweet, causing an advertiser backlash that added to X's already significant financial struggles.
"Our mission at X is bold: to be an open platform without censorship of thought—one that provides people information and the freedom to make up their own minds," she wrote.
"X sits in a one-of-a-kind constellation of companies that are changing the world—from helping to conserve the planet through Tesla's electric vehicles, to exploring new planets with SpaceX, to the seamless global connectivity of Starlink, to the potential of transforming lives with Neuralink, to responsibly reimagining the benefits of AGI through xAI."
Yaccarino also defended Musk publicly in a post on twitter.com, writing that the X owner "offered an apology, an explanation and an explicit point of view about our position.
On November 15, Musk replied, "You have said the actual truth" to an X post that said Jewish communities are "pushing hatred against whites."
At the DealBook interview, he called the post "foolish" and said, "I should in retrospect not have replied to that one person and should have written in greater length what I meant."
The original article contains 486 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 60%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Good bot
CEO is just a musk suck up.
I pity the ceo who has to cleanup after him
Never pity a CEO. Ever. They make a quarter of a million doing less than you with only a golden parachute.
I don't. She took the job and got that shit sandwich all to herself.
Nobody put a gun to her head to take this gig, she knew or should have known what she was getting into.
Edit - I never read any comments since the first two.
Edit - it’s ironic that the uncompromising ideology of the left is making Trump 2.0 inevitable. Absolute shame. Read the room folks.
Edit - next day: wow, 60 downvotes. I must have hit a nerve close to truth to illicit a response beyond indifference. 16 upvotes, decent ratio. I’m pretty sure that speaking in support of speech protections will become more of a freedom of religion issue in the years to come, as post-Marxist critical theory takes on more and more of a dogmatic, theological place in intellectual society. I can assure not each of you is at the end of their political and ideological journeys, and happy to have planted this seed. May it bloom. -Omar
…
Lemmy might hate me for this… Musk is right on speech. It’s not often that those in power will have the moral compass to justly decide what ideas can be said and what cannot. Without free speech protections, none of the LGBTQIA+ movement, or other social movements, would have taken hold. It sucks that extremists will espouse hurtful views, but it’s absolutely critical that the speech of minority voices be protected. What will the world be like if the assholes win and say the only legal speech is something that would completely abhor us today. Look at speech in Russia. I believe the country has just designated LGBTQIA+ activists terrorists. What will happen if the wrong people get power in the USA or Europe?
Edit: I’m not going to reply any more. I’ve said my piece.
Edit: one more edit for the downvotes. Someone you don’t like can have a correct idea. Someone who you admire can have the wrong idea. There’s an argument that speech protections should extended into the defacto town squares (short of harassment, etc…), and because of the reasons I stated above, it’s an important humanitarian issue. I’m not some asshole troll trying to stir anything up, just wanted to voice an idea I feel is important. Wish you all well.
Another edit 30 mins later: I’m an HSP with PTSD, so as much as I would like to chat and learnt some other perspectives, my nervous system has a hard time with stimulation when I don’t feel safe that I can be speaking to someone in good faith. I understand this may seem counterintuitive to my argument, but I still think speech protection is an important humanitarian issue that is worth dealing with speech I don’t agree with.
Edit: 1 hour later. Well, I never thought it would get this much disapproval. May you all live life with wisdom and honor and light. And may you never be silenced in your pursuit of justice. Peace.
He owns a major social network and his remarks are regularly repeated in the press. Who or what is harming his free speech? The constitutional right to free speech is protection from the government punishing someone. The advertisers are exercising their right to be associated or not with what happens on “X”.
Yeah, some Yung Fucky Dee rapper can flip birds all day, catering to his fans, but he won't expect that Disney will offer him a collab project. There's a completely different level of requirements for being a successful major social network owner/ceo
Elon is not free speech, he regularly bans, fires or bullies anyone that disagrees with or makes fun of him.
Elon is free to say or agree with whatever wild point of view he chooses and advertisers are free to decide they don’t want their brand associated with that kind of take. That isn’t a free speech issue, it’s the free market that Elon pretends to love in action.
He doesn’t want free speech, he wants consequence free speech which has never been a thing.
If you look at musjs actions, he shuts down speech he doesn't like. He is only a proponent of free speech that benefits him.
I agree, minority voices should be able to freely say what they want. Nobody has the right to force others to listen, though.
The principle of free speech is good, but it too has limits. Musk is not a proponent of free speech and Twitter is no longer useful for activists or political organisation. Probably why the totalitarian governments invested in it. To shut down that type of use.
I am a huge proponent of free speech personally, and I exercise it regularly. However, I do not believe it is a right to be able to force your speech into places it is not wanted.
Free speech should also include other people's right to be free from your speech, if they so wish. It is not a right to force your speech onto others against their will.
In actual fact, it is only one thing, and that's the letter of the law. Congress shall make no law that infringes. It says nothing about corporations or individuals, who have the right to do as they wish. And frankly, if you want to fuck up some corporations, we'd probably be happy to help with that. Don't listen to conservatives trying to say woke is censorship. It's a lot more complicated than that, as usual.
Feel free to pm me a reply if you'd like to have your say, but rather not engage in public.
Entirely sure that lgbtqia people were actively silenced despite "free speech" laws in America and were arrested and beaten plenty for it
Fwiw, you got my up vote for contributing an honest opinion to the thread. Totally excellent in that regard.
Where I disagree is in thinking that muskrat is making decisions based on a moral compass defending free speech. He will gladly suppress speech he doesn't like, given a chance.
I would also point you towards the so called tolerance "paradox". There must be limits to what is tolerated, or the whole thing breaks down. And that's coming from someone that's pretty damn tolerant of extreme speech as a matter of principle. But the truth is that musk has free speech. He has publicly made statements, and has not received governmental interference in his ability to say dumb shit. Nor have any of the idiots spewing bigoted rhetoric.
I will also exercise my free speech and say that I will gladly put my foot up the ass of anyone that says the same shit as musk approved of in my presence. Freedom of speech does not equate freedom from consequences of speech. That includes my preference for kicking the shit out of bigots, advertisers backing away, etc.
Edit: I would also encourage anyone finding this to go and upvote the person I'm responding to. They made a comment in good faith, that was on topic and honest. That should be an opportunity to have a good conversation about it, no matter how many times it's been covered before. It's an important conversation to repeat. The boundaries of one of the core human rights (that of freedom of speech/expression) is too important to not merit repeated discussion.
The limits are violence, no? The point of free speech is that the government doesn't get to use violence against you for words. When that turns into actions such as violence or credible threats, then self defence and law enforcement come into play.
If you meant that their intolerant language should warrant intolerance from you, then great, that's covered under free speech. But that's not what you mean, you want to respond to intolerant language with violence and want to pick which language is intolerant enough.
@elonjet et al would like to have a word. Musk and free speech is a good example of preaching water and drinking wine.
How long was the umbilical cord wrapped around your neck again?
Lemmy is even worse than than Reddit when it comes to sharing a different opinion. Don't even try that here. I also do agree Trump will get elected again mainly because the left continues to silence the right. So instead of communication, people from the left have no issues doing whatever it takes to silence voices they dont like. And they call it free speech lmao. This is why I left Democrat and became a Republican. Though last time I refused to vote for Trump, this time I will. Cause the yinyang is broken. We need a balance.
