Hacker News Reader

Comment by frereubu | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it's that simple is it? Companies like Ford don't advertise on sites like Parler not just because there aren't many people there, but because of the content that their adverts would be presented alongside. What seems to concern companies about the new direction of Twitter is that more extremists may be allowed back on Twitter if the content rules are loosened, and the companies' advertising may be presented alongside that. It may also be that if those extremists are allowed back then many people will start to desert Twitter, and it will be even less attractive. But I think both things - number of users and the content - are being taken into account.

View on HN

As a Life long F150 owner (having owned 5 of one from each of the last 5 generations including my current one... all V8's as well, Ecoboost V6 is a terrible engine and does not belong in a truck ;) ), and a person that lives in a Red State, and a person that Knows alot of other F150 owners..

I can assure you the people screeching about twitters new ownership are not Fords Customer base. Ford's bread and butter is the F150, a class of vehicle that the twitterverse that is leaving on mass would like to eliminate from production

Ford marketing dept is extremely tone deaf listing to that crowd

You have a very skewed view of who’s buying the F150 and who they’re selling the Lightning to.

No I have a very very correct view of who is buying both the F150 and the Lightning...

Sorry but all you say in you post is a bunch of baseless personal assertions pushing a specific personal political take that has no substance or credibility.

The Ford F150 is no niche product. It's the most popular car in all US states except in 5 or 6 states. According to some sources , "the vast majority of these new trucks are [sold] in large and medium-sized cities."

https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2018/10/pickup-truck-owner-de...

So unless you want to claim that white males living in large urban centers from all corners o the US are not Twitter's demographics, your view is baseless and completely detached from reality.

But be my guest and point out the best source you used to source your claim.

And lastly:

https://marketing.twitter.com/en/success-stories/ford-f150-l...

Hard to explain, isn't it?

>>So unless you want to claim that white males living in large urban centers from all corners o the US are not Twitter's demographics

That is not my claim at all, my claim is the people that are freaking out about Elon owning twitter, that are freaking out about having a more free speech platform, that are freaking out that conservatives views will not be instantly banned by twitter "trust and safety" are not white males living in or buying trucks in Medium to Large cities in largely fly over country outside of Coastal West, and Coastal North East states which seems to be where most of the people freaking out are based from.

Ford suspending ads on twitter is doing a disservice to ford, to appease people that were never going to buy a F150 in the first place. The twitter users Ford is targeting either does not care, or supports Elon's changes.

>>It's the most popular car in all US states except in 5 or 6 states.

Yes, and what states are those?? All blue states, and specifically Silicon Valley.

>>"the vast majority of these new trucks are [sold] in large and medium-sized cities."

I dont think that is the "gotcha" you think it is... There are plenty of Medium and even large cities in "fly over" country, further most dealers in large and medium sized cities so even if you do not live in one, or plan on using your truck in one, chances are you are traveling to a Large or medium sized city to buy the thing.

I currently live in a Medium sized city, but my truck was bought in a large city (the 3rd largest city in my state) and my previous truck was bought in the state capital even though I lived in a town of 1500 people at the time... The dealer I bought it from was a 4 hour drive away.

> conservatives views will not be instantly banned by twitter

I see assertions like this a lot. Please show me the person who has been banned from Twitter for advocating for lower taxes or social benefit cuts. Or even, if you want to stretch the definition of “conservatives views”, gun rights and climate denial.

>>Please show me the person who has been banned from Twitter for advocating for lower taxes or social benefit cuts.

That would be republican public policy views, not conservative views. They are different things.

Conservative views are less about the economy and more about culture, family, traditional gender roles, faith, etc.

There are all kinds of examples of that being banned espically since TOS is written for a progressive or left world view

Remember the banning of Babylon Bee for satirically misgendering a trans high profile public offical was the catalyst that started Elon talking about buying twitter in the first place

Ford cares what non-Parler users think. That’s it. And because there are many, many more non-Parler users than Parler users, they’ve done extremely basic cost benefit analysis.

There’s also an interesting prisoner’s dilemma to advertising, which cuts both ways. If your competitors advertise, then you need to as well. And if they don’t, then you don’t either.

I really don't think companies care what their ads appear alongside. They care about a Twitter user posting an outrage tweet with a screenshot of an ad for a Burger appearing next to the N word. As if we aren't mature enough yet to separate ad space and user generated content.

The ads pay for the content that appears next to them to appear in the first place. There can be no separation at ad funded companies.

Companies do care what their ads appear alongside, because of the outrage tweets and because, en masse, people / the media aren't mature enough to separate ad space and user-generated content.

No a very loud, very vocal, minority of users that have an extreme authoritarian world view and will create the appearance of wide scale social outrage where there is none will scare marketers..

Of course if they had any real data on the impact of their ads they probally will realize that none of the ads are effective anyway. I have never once saw a twitter ad for a large national fast food place, or a car company and said "hey I need to go buy from them"

Now marketing for lesser known things, things I may not have even known existed well that is effective. But a Burger king add no....

Pray tell, before the internet how many effective boycotts were there in media, are you suggesting this never existed?

The vocal minority has always had the largest impact in all history, that's just how humans work. And even sometimes the vocal minority is correct and the moderate masses say "Oh, yea, you're right megacorp does suck and should probably change".

Simply put there are a number of relatively high view sites that don't have what we would consider reputable advertisers because those advertisers don't agree with the message of the site.

That is simply not true.... the reality is the vocal minority can only effect change is the structures of power support their cause.

This is why people are sooo upset with the management change at twitter, and why they are going after the advertisers now while they still have at least symbolically control over the structures of power.

For at least 20 years now the far left authoritarians have had total control over the media, and the large internet platforms, this wind is starting to shift to the other direction and we are seeing the inevitable attempt to tear down the system before "the others" gain control over it

>For at least 20 years now the far left authoritarians have had total control over the media

I try not to cuss much on HN, but what the fuck are you talking about? If you think Fox News, one of the organizations with the largest audience is far left, you're out of your mind. If you think MSNBC or CBS were anywhere close to 'far left', you are again, out of your mind. Under no definition are those far left.

I think you have a confused idea that a 'open free market' system is building itself, where in reality a bunch of far right fascists are attempting a powergrab.

>If you think Fox News

One slightly right authoritarian news source does not a rule make... I bet you think "republican" means right.... I am a firm believer of the unipary theory of politics

Republicans are no better than democrats. One wants to tell you what to do with your life (including your bedroom) but leave you with your money and guns, the other wants to take your money and guns but will allow you to do pretty much any thing you want (including victimize violently and take an property of others it seems)

Neither are good, both are very much authoritarian

> If you think MSNBC or CBS were anywhere close to 'far left',

If we are cussing.... What the fuck are you talking about... MSNBC not far left? What the hell do you consider far left then... MSNBC is the leftist of left.... Hell At this point they are probably more left than the Young Turks

Ground News marks them as left as well [1]. NPR is "leans left" [2] and Reuters is "Center" [3]

[1] https://ground.news/interest/msnbc [2] https://ground.news/interest/npr [3] https://ground.news/interest/reuters_fa2539

For every Fox news, there are 5++ Left media companies, so yes Fox nows has a large audience because it is consolidated and not spread out between MSNBC, CNN, New Times, Washington Post, and the 100's of other left and left leaning outlets.

The left-leaning bias is not limited to just "news".

It is also very much present in various tech and fashion/style publications - check out Ars Technica and GQ as examples.

Both owned by the corporate mouthpiece Condé Nast Inc., by the way.

Everyone who doesn't agree with me is a fascist!

Democrat Strategy 2022

Let's see how that works out for them tomorrow...

>I have never once saw a twitter ad for a large national fast food place, or a car company and said "hey I need to go buy from them"

Almost no one thinks advertising works on them, but that comes from a misunderstanding of what ads are trying to accomplish. Mercedes doesn't expect you to see a Twitter ad then go out and buy a $60k car. They advertise to establish their brand so that when you do decide to buy a car, you have a perception of Mercedes that is at least partially built through the years of advertisements you have seen from them.

Especially because Twitter design makes it hard to separate them. There's a small text "promoted tweet" but that's it. No background, border anything to help telling them apart.

IMO companies shouldn't care what their ads appear alongside. It's the way to over moderation/censorship.

>I really don't think companies care what their ads appear alongside. They care about a Twitter user posting an outrage tweet with a screenshot of an ad for a Burger appearing next to the N word.

I don't understand what distinction you are making here? Aren't those the same things?

> I really don't think companies care what their ads appear alongside.

It's always funny to see people on HN confidently assert absolute horseshit based on no experience.

As someone who's worked in ad-supported publishing, they absolutely do. A lot of time and energy goes into trying to ensure ads never appear alongside content that the purchaser doesn't want, and failure usually results in running ads for free, at a minimum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com