IBM, Lionsgate, the European Union, and, reportedly, Apple, have all pulled advertising from X following Elon Musk’s apparent endorsement of an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Experts say it could soon get much worse.
They’re referring to the “halo effect” of Apple accepting the claim of antisemitism.
Truthful or not, Apple is sort of an “influencer” when it comes to ethics, with one of the few openly gay CEOs in big tech and a history of doing, or at least claiming to do, the right thing when any negative labor practices are revealed.
I think there is a sense that if Apple is willing to walk away, it’s a signal to other companies that the problem is real.
I think there is a sense that if Apple is willing to walk away, it’s a signal to other companies that the problem is real.
I agree that Apple may be the canary in the coal mine but I propose a motive beyond ethics.
It may be that Apple has seen a reduction in traffic from ads on Twitter recently and this latest move by Musk, coupled with everything else, gave them leverage to get out of any contracted ad buys. They pull ineffective ads, help their brand and ethics image, and save money doing it.
The cynic in me says whatever the motivation the largest driver is financial.
I agree, and I may have muddled that in my response. I was more proposing an alternative to Apple’s “influencer” in ethics status being a driver for their departure, or for other companies.
Positing that ethics may be a factor but ultimately that Apple’s motivation is financial and other businesses understand that. They’ll see it as the tide turning to where Twitter advertising is going to start hurting brands this the halo effect.
The cynic in me says whatever the motivation the largest driver is financial.
Always is. “Ethics” is just a guide to survival as a society- corporate ethics is really just a guide to survival, too. Which is why so many corporations seem unethical to people… their guide to survival is “lie cheat and steal”… where people see that as problematic.
It was a huge part of his story when Apple was dodging taxes, mostly because they used PR to kind of hide behind him just coming out as a cudgel to say any criticism or questions about Apple tax dodging were driven by homophobia.
It’s sickening when rich people use minority status to hand wave away legitimate criticism that has nothing to do with their minority status.
Guy was running the richest company in the US and had a large team of private security at his behest but he was “brave” for coming out as gay. There was so much PR pushing that the time it was gross.
Nah the no-name poverty-stricken kid growing up in a tiny town in the South who risks having the living shit kicked out of him daily for being gay is the kind of person who is brave for coming out. Not a top paid corporate board member who is basically untouchable.
I’m not saying Tim Cook has never faced discrimination, but as the CEO of Apple? His position of power absolutely insulates him from the worst abuses most in the LGBT community face.
They’re referring to the “halo effect” of Apple accepting the claim of antisemitism.
Truthful or not, Apple is sort of an “influencer” when it comes to ethics, with one of the few openly gay CEOs in big tech and a history of doing, or at least claiming to do, the right thing when any negative labor practices are revealed.
I think there is a sense that if Apple is willing to walk away, it’s a signal to other companies that the problem is real.
I agree that Apple may be the canary in the coal mine but I propose a motive beyond ethics.
It may be that Apple has seen a reduction in traffic from ads on Twitter recently and this latest move by Musk, coupled with everything else, gave them leverage to get out of any contracted ad buys. They pull ineffective ads, help their brand and ethics image, and save money doing it.
The cynic in me says whatever the motivation the largest driver is financial.
My reading of the “it’s not just about money” statement was, “it’s not just about losing Apple’s advertising spend”.
I agree, and I may have muddled that in my response. I was more proposing an alternative to Apple’s “influencer” in ethics status being a driver for their departure, or for other companies.
Positing that ethics may be a factor but ultimately that Apple’s motivation is financial and other businesses understand that. They’ll see it as the tide turning to where Twitter advertising is going to start hurting brands this the halo effect.
Always is. “Ethics” is just a guide to survival as a society- corporate ethics is really just a guide to survival, too. Which is why so many corporations seem unethical to people… their guide to survival is “lie cheat and steal”… where people see that as problematic.
I didn’t know Tim Cook was gay today I learned
Ya, I’m gladdened to see that it’s not part of his story at every turn. I feel like that’s a positive thing. Acceptance is good.
It was a huge part of his story when Apple was dodging taxes, mostly because they used PR to kind of hide behind him just coming out as a cudgel to say any criticism or questions about Apple tax dodging were driven by homophobia.
It’s sickening when rich people use minority status to hand wave away legitimate criticism that has nothing to do with their minority status.
Guy was running the richest company in the US and had a large team of private security at his behest but he was “brave” for coming out as gay. There was so much PR pushing that the time it was gross.
Nah the no-name poverty-stricken kid growing up in a tiny town in the South who risks having the living shit kicked out of him daily for being gay is the kind of person who is brave for coming out. Not a top paid corporate board member who is basically untouchable.
I’m not saying Tim Cook has never faced discrimination, but as the CEO of Apple? His position of power absolutely insulates him from the worst abuses most in the LGBT community face.
Hes probably gay more than just today too.