You're not Twitter's customer. Advertisers are.
And they don't want their brands to be associated with unpleasant content.
And they don't want their brands to be associated with unpleasant content.
Just ignore it or block them. The only time it's an issue is when you engage. Seriously the only people with this issue can't let shit go.
Blocking them requires first engaging with their content. This is what people always miss in the discussion. To know if you need to block someone or not involves parsing their comment and then throwing it in the bin.
The same goes for ignoring it. And eventually people get tired of the barrage of slurs and just leave because the brainpower required to sift through garbage isn't worth it anymore. That's how you end up with places like Voat.
How much is "most"? What data do you have? Plus, even if ~20% of customers care and only half will boycott, that's still going to have an impact on the company's bottom line.
If that were the case why is Twitter ad spend in the low single digits for most companies.
> MAYBE sometimes an advertiser will get mad, but a backroom sales conversation will usually get them back once the whole thing blows over.
If you have a billboard with someone being raped beneath it and a photo goes viral, no one would blame the company advertising on the billboard. Frankly, no one will associate the two to change their purchasing habits.
The reason corporations care are the ESG scores and activist employees.
Also these brands still advertise in places where public executions will happen (Saudi Arabia). No one is complaining there.
The idea that they won't seems pretty ridiculous.
But their customers complain about it, media picks it up and it becomes an outrage story.
That's what brands are scared of.
A LOT, but nothing happened.
It’s not about customers complaining.