Experts in social media and advertising say an advertiser exodus has left X reliant on smaller, less reputable ad buyers.
  • 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

  • CileTheSaneEnglish
    15·
    11 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.worldEnglish
          2·
          11 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.

      • Mikina@programming.devEnglish
        21·
        11 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.worldEnglish
          6·
          11 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.devEnglish
            1·
            11 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.