858

X is left with advertisers pushing dubious cryptocurrency and AI 'undressing' apps, users say after Musk's outburst (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 10 months ago by AnActOfCreation@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

181 comments fedilink hide all child comments

X users are complaining about an influx of low-quality ads promoting crypto scams and AI "undressing" apps.
The decline in reputable advertisers on X has made the platform more reliant on less reputable ad buyers.
The exodus of advertisers, partially due to Elon Musk's controversial behavior, has left X with a growing revenue gap.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/sbOxS

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 15 points 10 months ago

Even if his aim was to not destroy Twitter from the inside, he will absolutely say that was his goal when it eventually happens.

Could that open him up to lawsuits from investors?

[-] andros_rex@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

His investors wanted this. Twitter was a huge threat to a few oil rich autocratic regimes.

[-] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

ooh, juicy accusation

[-] andros_rex@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Larry Ellison (Oracle) were the biggest backers in the buy out deal. Saudi Arabia’s princes want to keep a tight control on information - remember how they butchered Khashoggi? With Qatar it was probably to prevent any slave labor deaths associated with FIFA from going viral. Larry Ellison probably just wanted all that juicy data, idk, he’s quiet but he gives a lot of money to right wing American causes.

[-] butterflyattack@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Doesn't mean they won't sue.

[-] adrian783@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

he owns Twitter

[-] ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub 2 points 10 months ago

At that point, he could just deactivate the entire platform

[-] Mikina@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago

I though Twitter is publicly traded and has stocks? That would mean that he definitely has a duty towards investors who bought the shares to lead the company in a responsible way, and if he claimed that he destroyed it on purpose, it should lead to a lawsuit from them. But I ain't no lawyer, only vaguely remember hearing something like that. Or does he own 100% of the shares himself and is the sole investor?

[-] efstajas@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It used to be publicly traded, but it went private when he acquired it.

Which doesn't mean he doesn't answer to any investors anymore, of course. He got quite a lot of assistance with that acquisition.

[-] Mikina@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago

Oh, I see. I guess that means there's basically no-one who can sue him, if there aren't any investors.

As long as he can repay any loans and stuff, then I suppose he can do whatever he wants with the company. If, however, he bancrupts it to the point of not being able to pay back anything the company owes, then he should be in trouble. I hope.

[-] dabaldeagul@feddit.nl 1 points 10 months ago

Fafaik he bought 100% of the shares.

this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024

858 points (94.2% liked)

Technology

59710 readers

1972 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS