More than a quarter of advertisers are planning to cut spending on Elon Musk’s X over concerns about the social media platform’s content and
trust in the information disseminated, according to new global research.

Advertising revenue flowing to X has been in freefall since Musk bought
the site, then known as Twitter, for $44bn (£38bn) in October 2022,
claiming it had not lived up to its potential as a platform for “free speech”.

However, Musk’s erratic and controversial behaviour on X, where he has
almost 200 million followers, has fuelled a backlash from advertisers
who have cut back or stopped running promotions there.

Research by data firm Kantar, based on interviews with 18,000 consumers
and 1,000 senior marketers around the world, has found that 26% of
marketers are planning to cut back ad spend on X in 2025.

Figures from eMarketer highlight the rapid commercial decline of the
platform in recent years, with the company’s global revenues peaking in
2021 at $4.46bn.

In 2022, global revenues dropped to $4.14bn. Since the world’s richest
man took over the site at the end of that year, they have more than
halved, with annual revenue forecast to fall to $1.9bn by the end of
this year.

“Advertisers have been moving their marketing spend away from X for
several years,” said Bubani. “The stark acceleration of this trend in
the past 12 months means a turnaround seems unlikely.”

Last month, X moved to sue a global advertising alliance and several
major companies, including Unilever, Mars and CVS Health, accusing them
of unlawfully conspiring to shun the social network and intentionally
causing it to lose revenue.

“We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war,” Musk tweeted at the time.

Last year, Musk delivered a profanity-laced message to advertisers
pulling money from X during an on-stage interview at an event in New York.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/article/2024/sep/05/advertiser-exodus-x-survey-2025-elon-musk

Good riddance X. Formerly Twitter.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 7.9.2024 klo 12.01:

Good riddance X. Formerly Twitter.

Yes, it's terrible that internet still has these places where free
speech is mostly allowed. I think main stream media should be allowed to
push their propaganda uninterrupted & unchallenged.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:> Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 7.9.2024 klo 12.01:>> Good riddance X. Formerly Twitter.>> Yes, it's terrible that internet still has these places where > free> speech is mostly allowed. I think main stream media should be > allowed>

to push their propaganda uninterrupted & unchallenged.When it suits him. Like most "free speech absolutists", he defines free speech as "speech I approve of".https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-enabling-turkish-censorship-on-twitter-
calling-it-his-choice/




Musk didn't ban anything, Turkish government did.

"This weekend, Twitter restricted access to some tweets in Turkey at the request of the Turkish government ahead of its next presidential election."

"Twitter posted the court orders and the regulator's correspondence."

https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1658208072215437314




As it should be done.

Governments can even kill you in some places (death penalty), take your money away in all places (taxes) so no surprise they can ban you from gathering or speaking.

That's the normal procedure.

None of it is a private company's business to do such things. Nor allow it.


The idea that Musk should have "allowed" those accounts (and we don't even know what kind of accounts were they, maybe their ban is legit), but anyway, the idea that he should have "allowed" it, implies it was his decision to make in the first place,
furthermore implying he gets to choose what's allowed or not in public communication.

Sheer lunacy.


If you're displeased with the government, you can direct your grievances at them. That's why it's there. If Turks have complaints about this, they can talk to their leader. As Pelle once famously said about governments"they tell you how to live". It's
them who do that, or at least try to do that as much as possible.

It's certainly not Musk's job.

If you're displeased with the private company, what can you do. Stop using their products? Lol. Make your own X.com? Make your own NBA? Make your own Microsoft?


I'm always amazed by your lack of logic in this case and similar cases, but it's a broader stuff prevelant among many Americans with quasi libertarian tendencies. I think.

You advocate for complete tyranny by the unelected oligarchy in the name of freedom.


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> writes:> jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:> Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 7.9.2024 klo >> 12.01:>> Good riddance X. Formerly Twitter.>> Yes, it's >> terrible that internet still

has these places where > free> >> speech is mostly allowed. I think main stream media should be > >> allowed> to push their propaganda uninterrupted & >> unchallenged.When it suits him. Like most "free speech >> absolutists", he defines free speech as "
speech I approve >> of".https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-enabling-turkish-censorship-on-twitter-calling-it-his-choice/>>>>> Musk didn't ban anything, Turkish government did.>> "This weekend, Twitter restricted access to some
tweets in > Turkey at the request of the Turkish government ahead of its > next presidential election.">> "Twitter posted the court orders and the regulator's > correspondence.">> https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1658208072215437314>>>>> As it should
be done.>> Governments can even kill you in some places (death penalty), > take your money away in all places (taxes) so no surprise they > can ban you from gathering or speaking.>> That's the normal procedure.>> None of it is a private company's
business to do such > things. Nor allow it.>>> The idea that Musk should have "allowed" those accounts (and we > don't even know what kind of accounts were they, maybe their ban > is legit), but anyway, the idea that he should have "allowed" > it,
implies it was his decision to make in the first place, > furthermore implying he gets to choose what's allowed or not in > public communication. >> Sheer lunacy.>>> If you're displeased with the government, you can direct your > grievances at them. That'
s why it's there. If Turks have > complaints about this, they can talk to their leader. As Pelle > once famously said about governments"they tell you how to > live". It's them who do that, or at least try to do that as much > as possible.>> It's
certainly not Musk's job.>> If you're displeased with the private company, what can you > do. Stop using their products? Lol. Make your own X.com? Make > your own NBA? Make your own Microsoft?>>> I'm always amazed by your lack of logic in this case and
similar > cases, but it's a broader stuff prevelant among many Americans > with quasi libertarian tendencies. I think.>> You advocate for complete tyranny by the unelected oligarchy in > the name of freedom.Contrast this to the events that led up to the
Brazil X ban then? On the surface it sounds like a very similar set of circumstances except in the Turkey case Musk may have had a financial incentive to restrict speech and he took the opportunity without complaint. That's my point, Musk doesn't seem to
genuinely care about free speech in principle. Rather it appears to be opportunistic virtue signaling.For the record I don't agree with Brazil in this case.



But Brazil is a state. A country.

They call the shots.


It's none of your business "to agree or disagree" with anything.

I hope I'm being clear on this. It's like me saying "I don't agree with US gun laws or second amendment".

It's bizarre thing to say for a foreigner.



Sure we can echo our opinions and we do, but let's not do it in moralising way.

Of course Brasil is going to ban Musk. Musk is crusading against their government trying to overthrow it. He has that anti-socialist virus in his mind.

He's an illegitimate political actor in their case. He can't run in their election, he can't be voted out, yet he's an outsider with unaccounted influence effecting their political landscape.

He's kinda mirror Soros in Brasil's case.


That is not to say I support Brazil and their agenda. It's stupid regime too and I believe they're sincerely not into freedom of speech.


At least Musk is "conditionally" for the first speech. I assume he's curbing free speech in Brasil since he assumes they're not into free speech as well, so he can do as they do.

I get the logic.


But still, Brazil is the country so I'm on their side. We have to always be nationalists.



--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jdeluise kirjoitti 9.9.2024 klo 5.14:

TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:

Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 7.9.2024 klo 12.01:

Good riddance X. Formerly Twitter.

Yes, it's terrible that internet still has these places where free
speech is mostly allowed. I think main stream media should be allowed
to push their propaganda uninterrupted & unchallenged.

When it suits him.  Like most "free speech absolutists", he defines free speech as "speech I approve of".

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-enabling-turkish-censorship-on-twitter-calling-it-his-choice/

Not gonna defend Musk but this wasn't really about "approve of" situation.

Recently the biggest threat for free speech have come from the left with
all their "hate speech" excuses, pressuring of Twitter etc.

Hell, I think Trudeau probably put car tariffs on China because it hurts
Tesla. In addition to sucking up to US government.

Anyways...

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin.
If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of
freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re
not in favor of free speech."
― Noam Chomsky

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jdeluise kirjoitti 9.9.2024 klo 11.37:

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> writes:

jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:> Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 7.9.2024 klo
12.01:>> Good riddance X. Formerly Twitter.>> Yes, it's terrible that
internet still has these places where > free> speech is mostly
allowed. I think main stream media should be > allowed> to push their
propaganda uninterrupted & unchallenged.When it suits him.  Like most
"free speech absolutists", he defines free speech as "speech I
approve
of".https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-enabling-turkish-censorship-on-twitter-calling-it-his-choice/

Musk didn't ban anything, Turkish government did.

"This weekend, Twitter restricted access to some tweets in Turkey at
the request of the Turkish government ahead of its next presidential
election."

"Twitter posted the court orders and the regulator's correspondence."

https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1658208072215437314




As it should be done.

Governments can even kill you in some places (death penalty), take
your money away in all places (taxes) so no surprise they can ban you
from gathering or speaking.

That's the normal procedure.

None of it is a private company's business to do such things. Nor
allow it.


The idea that Musk should have "allowed" those accounts (and we don't
even know what kind of accounts were they, maybe their ban is legit),
but anyway, the idea that he should have "allowed" it, implies it was
his decision to make in the first place, furthermore implying he gets
to choose what's allowed or not in public communication.
Sheer lunacy.


If you're displeased with the government, you can direct your
grievances at them. That's why it's there. If Turks have complaints
about this, they can talk to their leader. As Pelle once famously said
about governments"they tell you how to live". It's them who do that,
or at least try to do that as much as possible.

It's certainly not Musk's job.

If you're displeased with the private company,  what can you do. Stop
using their products? Lol. Make your own X.com? Make your own NBA?
Make your own Microsoft?


I'm always amazed by your lack of logic in this case and similar
cases, but it's a broader stuff prevelant among many Americans with
quasi libertarian tendencies. I think.

You advocate for complete tyranny by the unelected oligarchy in the
name of freedom.

Contrast this to the events that led up to the Brazil X ban then? On the surface it sounds like a very similar set of circumstances except in the Turkey case Musk may have had a financial incentive to restrict speech
and he took the opportunity without complaint. That's my point, Musk
doesn't seem to genuinely care about free speech in principle.  Rather
it appears to be opportunistic virtue signaling.

For the record I don't agree with Brazil in this case.

Of course Musk has financial incentives... and his free speech campaign
does appear somewhat self-serving, as everything he does.

But what are you gonna do... allow everything on Twitter and then the government bans it in entire country...

Any case, I must say that without Twitter, solely relying on quite
biased mass media, the freedom of speech/opinion in Finland would be
much lesser... regardless that Finland often leads all sorts of freedom
of press polls etc. The press may be relatively free, but nearly all of
the reporters also are very left biased and run deliberately
leftist/green/woke agenda... they do not write about other side of the
coin of immigration, green transition, woke etc. They always pick far
left (even 70s communists), green etc to comment as "unbiased experts"
on the media.

The Finnish Green Party quit its party magazine because 'there was no
need for it anymore', the press is advancing their agenda 100%.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> writes:> jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> writes:> jdeluise >> <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> TT <TT@dprk.kp> >> writes:> Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 7.9.

2024 klo >> 12.01:>> Good >> riddance X. Formerly Twitter.>> Yes, it's >> terrible that >> internet still has these places where > free> >> speech is >> mostly allowed. I think main stream media should be > >> >> allowed> to push their propaganda
uninterrupted & >> >> unchallenged.When it suits him. Like most "free speech >> >> absolutists", he defines free speech as "speech I approve >> >> of".https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-enabling-turkish-censorship-on-twitter-
calling-it-his-choice/>>>>> >> Musk didn't ban anything, Turkish government did.>> "This >> weekend, Twitter restricted access to some tweets in > Turkey >> at the request of the Turkish government ahead of its > next >> presidential election.">> "
Twitter posted the court orders and >> the regulator's > correspondence.">> >> https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1658208072215437314>>>>> As >> it should be done.>> Governments can even kill you in some >> places (death penalty), > take your money away
in all places >> (taxes) so no surprise they > can ban you from gathering or >> speaking.>> That's the normal procedure.>> None of it is a >> private company's business to do such > things. Nor allow >> it.>>> The idea that Musk should have "allowed"
those accounts >> (and we > don't even know what kind of accounts were they, >> maybe their ban > is legit), but anyway, the idea that he >> should have "allowed" > it, implies it was his decision to make >> in the first place, > furthermore implying he
gets to choose >> what's allowed or not in > public communication. >> Sheer >> lunacy.>>> If you're displeased with the government, you can >> direct your > grievances at them. That's why it's there. If >> Turks have > complaints about this, they can
talk to their >> leader. As Pelle > once famously said about governments"they >> tell you how to > live". It's them who do that, or at least try >> to do that as much > as possible.>> It's certainly not Musk's >> job.>> If you're displeased with the
private company, what can >> you > do. Stop using their products? Lol. Make your own X.com? >> Make > your own NBA? Make your own Microsoft?>>> I'm always >> amazed by your lack of logic in this case and similar > cases, >> but it's a broader stuff
prevelant among many Americans > with >> quasi libertarian tendencies. I think.>> You advocate for >> complete tyranny by the unelected oligarchy in > the name of >> freedom.Contrast this to the events that led up to the Brazil X >> ban then? On the
surface it sounds like a very similar set of >> circumstances except in the Turkey case Musk may have had a >> financial incentive to restrict speech and he took the >> opportunity without complaint. That's my point, Musk doesn't >> seem to genuinely
care about free speech in principle. Rather >> it appears to be opportunistic virtue signaling.For the record >> I don't agree with Brazil in this case.>>>> But Brazil is a state. A country. >> They call the shots.>>> It's none of your business "to
agree or disagree" with anything.>> I hope I'm being clear on this. It's like me saying "I don't > agree with US gun laws or second amendment".>> It's bizarre thing to say for a foreigner.>>>> Sure we can echo our opinions and we do, but let's not do it
in > moralising way.>> Of course Brasil is going to ban Musk. Musk is crusading against > their government trying to overthrow it. He has that > anti-socialist virus in his mind. >> He's an illegitimate political actor in their case. He can't run > in
their election, he can't be voted out, yet he's an outsider > with unaccounted influence effecting their political landscape.>> He's kinda mirror Soros in Brasil's case.>>> That is not to say I support Brazil and their agenda. It's > stupid regime too
and I believe they're sincerely not into > freedom of speech.>>> At least Musk is "conditionally" for the first speech. I assume > he's curbing free speech in Brasil since he assumes they're not > into free speech as well, so he can do as they do.>> I
get the logic.>>> But still, Brazil is the country so I'm on their side. We have > to always be nationalists.Thanks for the word salad. Hold the Russian dressing next time, please.



No problem Jew boy.
--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)