Wouldn't it be amazing if RMN could get regular advertising again, like in the good old days? Imagine!

Hobie, Lynda (and Raye) could actually make a decent wage, for all the hours they put in here.

~NightSky

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By Tyler Durden

While Mark Cuban and other sore losers are leaving X to shout into the void, several major advertisers have returned to the platform.

Comcast, IBM, Disney, Warner Brothers, Discovery and Lionsgate Entertainment have all resumed ad spending on the social media giant – albeit this is more of a toe-dip than a full recommitment. According to Adweek, the brands collectively spent less than $3.3 million on X from January to September 2024, a far cry from the $170 million spent during the same period in 2023.

Either way, it’s an admission that pulling ad spend over ‘hate speech’ and ‘antisemitism’ was nothing more than a giant virtue signal, particularly considering Facebook and Instagram’s long history of providing a safe forum for child sexual abuse.

While a global survey by Kantar of senior marketers across 20 countries found that 26% of them plan to cut spending on X in 2025, the 2024 election may have changed that.

“X’s owner now has the ear of the president-elect, a man who has a long history of helping his friends, and punishing his enemies,” said Max Willens, senior analyst at Emarketer. “Sending at least a trickle of ad spending toward X may be seen as good for business, albeit in an indirect way.”

Advertising Cartel Under Fire

Speaking of the tide turning, the woke cabal of advertisers trying to starve conservative platforms out of a voice is now coming under fire (have we mentioned lately that we really appreciate our premium subscribers?).

In a Wednesday letter to Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Apple, and Meta, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr accused them of having “participated in a censorship cartel that included not only technology and social media companies but advertising, marketing, and so-called “fact-checking” organizations as well as the Biden-Harris Administration itself.”

“The relevant conduct extended from removing or blocking social media posts to suppress their information and viewpoints, including through efforts to delist them, lower their rankings, or harm their profitability.”

Carr then suggested that their protection from liability under Section 230 may be on the line.

“As you know, Big Tech’s prized liability shield, Section 230, is codified in the Communications Act, which the FCC administers. As relevant here, Section 230 only confers benefits on Big Tech companies when they operate, in the words of the statute, “in good faith.”

Wow…

Carr then set his sights on NewsGuard – which Jonathan Turley notes has been long accused by conservatives “of targeting conservative and libertarian sites and carrying out the agenda of its co-founder Steven Brill. Conversely, many media outlets have heralded his efforts to identify disinformation sites for advertisers and agencies.”

Basically, NewsGuard bombards conservative sites with struggle-session questionnaire emails demanding explanations for the slightest of indiscretions, after which they issue a “report card” that advertisers use to justify pulling ad spend.

As Carr notes in the letter; “It is in this context that I am writing to obtain information about your work with the one specific organization – the Orwellian named NewsGuard. As exposed by the Twitter Files, NewsGuard is a for-profit company that operates as part of the broader censorship cartel. Indeed, NewsGuard bills itself as the Internet’s arbiter of truth or, as its co-founder put it, a ‘Vaccine Against Misinformation.’ Newsguard purports to rate the credibility of news and information outlets and tells readers and advertisers which outlets they can trust.”

Carr suggests following NewsGuard’s ratings may constitute a violation of Section 230 (this is huge).

“NewsGuard’s own track record raises questions about whether relying on the organization’s products would constitute ‘good faith’ actions within the meaning of Section 230. For one, reports indicate that NewsGuard has consistently rated official propaganda from the Communist Party of China as more credible than American publications.”

“For another, NewsGuard aggressively fact checked and penalized websites that reported on the COVID-19 lab leak theory.”

Carr then demands the following information:

A list of every one of your products or services (if any, including advertising) that use or rely on any NewsGuard product, service, or ranking.

A list of every one of your products or services (if any) that enables any of your users or customers to use or rely on NewsGuard product, service, or ranking.

If you offer an advertising service, provide details on the use of any media monitor or fact checking service, including NewsGuard, that you may utilize.

Source: ZeroHedge
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/x-sees-mass-return-major-advertisers-newsguard-boycott-cartel-come-under-fire