"Greatest Act of Brand Suicide" - How Disney Lost $200 Billion

[FultzNationRISE]

Can't blame the left for wanting that strawman "gotcha" when they have had the exact same "go woke go broke" gotcha thrown at them repeatedly. That's what this thread is.

If Twitter does go under its not really a strawman either as Musk's efforts will have failed.

Also the idea that we are NOW suddenly having conversations on Twitter that we couldn't have before its a complete fallacy in itself. Every right wing take in existence was readily found on Twitter pre-Musk.

They banned the President. So I dont think your statement is correct.

Moreover, it was getting progressively worse, so it would be reasonable to assume even more flagrant examples would be happening now than were previously.

[bladefd]

If it was merely a matter of thinking Twitter could be more profitable with a different approach, he could have bought up a huge block of shares and put proxies on the board to wield his influence on the company's direction. This is what Carl Icahn does. Activist investing. It's a purely profit driven investment model. And it doesnt requiring privatizing a company.

Musk is not doing that. His aim, whether you agree with it or not, is to shape society as a whole, which by law cannot be the primary purpose of a public company. Public companies have fiduciary duty to prioritize profits. With a private company you can do as you please.

Anyway, think whatever you want. We're all blessed to have that right.

Twitter is not even decentralized. If his goal was to improve society with freedom of speech, he could have decentralized Twitter. Why did he also implement the change to charge money for people to have verified accounts if it's to not monetize twitter?

[FultzNationRISE]

Twitter is not even decentralized. If his goal was to improve society with freedom of speech, he could have decentralized Twitter. Why did he also implement the change to charge money for people to have verified accounts if it's to not monetize twitter?

I think that’s mainly a way to filter out bots, no? Cant spam a bunch of robo accounts without payin a hefty toll.

And obviously if there are ways to monetize the business which dont negate his primary aim, theres no reason not to do it. Im not saying he’ll ignore chances to generate revenue, I’m saying max revenue is not a mandate, as it would be if the company were owned publicly.

[FultzNationRISE]

As far as decentralizing, I dont think he’s looking to turn twitter into the dark web. I think he just wants a conventional social media platform where people can express social/political ideas that might otherwise be censored at the behest of profit driven sponsors.

If someone wants to say “well its not free speech now either, he banned someone who called for him to be murdered!” or whatever random example… thats fine. Im not saying it is, or purports to be a completely unfiltered space for dubious, borderline speech.

Im saying it’s just his vision of preventing a significant portion of the social/political spectrum from being pushed off mainstream social media. I believe that was the entire crux of his purchase. I dont think he wants the public pendulum to swing too far in one direction.

[1987_Lakers]

[Bill Gates]

They banned the President. So I dont think your statement is correct.

Moreover, it was getting progressively worse, so it would be reasonable to assume even more flagrant examples would be happening now than were previously.

Under that train of thought Trump was actually very active on Twitter pre-Musk and he is not now. So pre-Musk was even more right wing.

The banning of certain individuals only brought more attention and placed a spotlight on their cause.

The idea that humanity is now enlightened on subjects because of Musk's "free speech" is something many pretend is real but in reality it isn't. In reality the internet is a very huge place where anyone can find anything.

[Baller234]

Under that train of thought Trump was actually very active on Twitter pre-Musk and he is not now. So pre-Musk was even more right wing.

The banning of certain individuals only brought more attention and placed a spotlight on their cause.

The idea that humanity is now enlightened on subjects because of Musk's "free speech" is something many pretend is real but in reality it isn't. In reality the internet is a very huge place where anyone can find anything.

Oh god you're still going?

Trump isn't active on Twitter now because he launched his own (failing) platform in Truth Social and is obligated to post there. It's not like he's staying off Twitter post-Musk because he doesn't feel welcome.

Essentially what you're arguing here is that "censorship is good actually" because it turns people into online martyrs, which of course is something only a big brained genius would say. Evil acts don't stop being evil acts just because they compel good people to rise up.

Your argument is so laughably weak and shallow that I'm certain you don't even believe it. I highly, highly doubt you would be making these same arguments if it were left wing people being silenced and banned for spouting left wing views. Or if left wing media outlets were being suspended simply for reporting factual news about certain politicians.

Musk's takeover of Twitter is clearly and obviously a net benefit for anyone that values a free and fair press. You're just THAT desperate to find any little thing you can to pick apart, no matter how ridiculous or flat out false.

You're upset that Elon is helping Trump, and you hate Donald Trump THAT much.

[Bill Gates]

Oh god you're still going?

Trump isn't active on Twitter now because he launched his own (failing) platform in Truth Social and is obligated to post there. It's not like he's staying off Twitter post-Musk because he doesn't feel welcome.

Essentially what you're arguing here is that "censorship is good actually" because it turns people into online martyrs, which of course is something only a big brained genius would say. Evil acts don't stop being evil acts just because they compel good people to rise up.

Your argument is so laughably weak and shallow that I'm certain you don't even believe it. I highly, highly doubt you would be making these same arguments if it were left wing people being silenced and banned for spouting left wing views. Or if left wing media outlets were being suspended simply for reporting factual news about certain politicians.

Musk's takeover of Twitter is clearly and obviously a net benefit for anyone that values a free and fair press. You're just THAT desperate to find any little thing you can to pick apart, no matter how ridiculous or flat out false.

You're upset that Elon is helping Trump, and you hate Donald Trump THAT much.

No where anywhere did I say "censorship is good". That's a strawman.

I'm saying that the internet is a huge place where anyone can find anything. The fact that Trump created his own Twitter to reach his followers proves my point. Twitter didn't silence Trump, if you want to know Trump's thoughts they are readily available.

[Baller234]

No where anywhere did I say "censorship is good". That's a strawman.

I'm saying that the internet is a huge place where anyone can find anything. The fact that Trump created his own Twitter to reach his followers proves my point. Twitter didn't silence Trump, if you want to know Trump's thoughts they are readily available.

Truth Social doesn't have anywhere near the reach that Twitter has. In fact he relies on his followers and cronies sharing his stuff on Twitter, otherwise he couldn't get the word out.

It's not a good sign for the country when dissenting voices have no choice but to resort to indie and underground platforms with a fraction of the reach because they aren't allowed to speak on mainstream ones. That was the climate on social media pre-Musk. If you were considered right wing or if you had opinions that undermined the government establishment, you were denied reach. Either you were outright banned or you were being shadow banned behind the scenes.

You implied that Musk's purchase of Twitter didn't really have much of an impact on the public discourse. You couldn't be more wrong. It has, and it's why he's made so many enemies.

[Bill Gates]

Truth Social doesn't have anywhere near the reach that Twitter has. In fact he relies on his followers and cronies sharing his stuff on Twitter, otherwise he couldn't get the word out.

It's not a good sign for the country when dissenting voices have no choice but to resort to indie and underground platforms with a fraction of the reach because they aren't allowed to speak on mainstream ones. That was the climate on social media pre-Musk. If you were considered right wing or if you had opinions that undermined the government establishment, you were denied reach. Either you were outright banned or you were being shadow banned behind the scenes.

You implied that Musk's purchase of Twitter didn't really have much of an impact on the public discourse. You couldn't be more wrong. It has, and it's why he's made so many enemies.

Those who honestly and truthfully desire to know Trump's thoughts are on Truth Social reading them.

The pretenders who just want to whine and complain about free speech and "own libs" are on X doing that now. There are more people consumed in the tribalism of it all than those who actually desire Trump's thoughts. I suspect you are just that. You don't care what Trump is typing up right now, you just want to cry and complain because you have nothing better to do today. That's most of society in a nutshell.

[Baller234]

Those who honestly and truthfully desire to know Trump's thoughts are on Truth Social reading them.

The pretenders who just want to whine and complain about free speech and "own libs" are on X doing that now. There are more people consumed in the tribalism of it all than those who actually desire Trump's thoughts. I suspect you are just that. You don't care what Trump is typing up right now, you just want to cry and complain because you have nothing better to do today. That's most of society in a nutshell.

Wow, this is quite the big brained take.

So when conservatives talk about the fact that they are being silenced on mainstream social media platforms, that constitutes as whining? They shouldn't be rightly upset over that fact?

It's a bad thing that Musk took over and gave both sides a voice?

[bladefd]

As far as decentralizing, I dont think he’s looking to turn twitter into the dark web. I think he just wants a conventional social media platform where people can express social/political ideas that might otherwise be censored at the behest of profit driven sponsors.

If someone wants to say “well its not free speech now either, he banned someone who called for him to be murdered!” or whatever random example… thats fine. Im not saying it is, or purports to be a completely unfiltered space for dubious, borderline speech.

Im saying it’s just his vision of preventing a significant portion of the social/political spectrum from being pushed off mainstream social media. I believe that was the entire crux of his purchase. I dont think he wants the public pendulum to swing too far in one direction.

Twitter is not doing all that great anyways. It's slowly falling in active users since elon took over.

[Bill Gates]

Wow, this is quite the big brained take.

So when conservatives talk about the fact that they are being silenced on mainstream social media platforms, that constitutes as whining? They shouldn't be rightly upset over that fact?

It's a bad thing that Musk took over and gave both sides a voice?

I'm saying the right already had a voice pre-Musk. A very loud voice. All the same silly right wing takes that are found on X right now were also readily found on Twitter. Nothing new has been exposed.

[Baller234]

I'm saying the right already had a voice pre-Musk. A very loud voice. All the same silly right wing takes that are found on X right now were also readily found on Twitter. Nothing new has been exposed.

But we established that they were being penalized and suppressed for using that voice.

[Phoenix]

Disney was always going to struggle with the inevitable change in social demographics.

Their bread and butter as a brand was to be an entertainment staple for middle class families. From the 50s to the 90s that was a great strategy.

Today, the middle class is proportionally shrinking, and those who are middle class are having fewer children.

Same reason Toys R Us went out of business, and family restaurants like Applebees and Fridays have struggled. The market has simply evolved away from for what they offer.

Disney going woke isnt really what caused their predicament. They went woke as a way to try to mitigate the effects of demographic change on their business. It just turns out the woke audience is unable or unwilling to support them financially, while their conventional audience is inevitably shrinking.

They just dont have a viable market right now for what Disney traditionally offers.

What you're saying in the bolded is true but I feel like that's been the case for some time, definitely prior to the box office returns falling off a cliff. Something like Frozen made 1.28 billion globally....that was 2013, really not that long ago. Moana in 2016 made nearly 700 million. The MCU up till Endgame in 2019 was the most financially successful series in film history. It seems like since covid they pivoted to building stories around identity politics, coupled with Disney+ being far less successful than they anticipated...and it's been a death by a thousand cuts scenario. The parks are also struggling as a knock-on effect of being unable to create new compelling characters that draw kids/families, and they've done nothing with their legacy characters going back to their animation heyday. But the name Disney, as recently as 4-5 years, wasn't the trainwreck it is now.