"Twitter has had a tumultuous few days" ONLY in the eyes of the mass media, which includes AppleInsider. And I say this truth as an avid reader of AppleInsider who continues to love content here. But despite my love for AppleInsider, I call it like it is.
Daily reporting of Musk is either mass hysteria, cancel culture at work, or simply capitalist profiteering from hot-button "shock" news to draw in more readers. Or maybe it's all of those things.
Here's reality...
It's not that big a deal.
Musk is a rich guy who for his own reasons bought Twitter -- a social media platform that I myself never use except for the rare cases of entering some kind of giveaway or sweepstakes. FaceBook interactions mean far, far more to me. (I'm not into Instagram either, for what it's worth.) And while a large number of people really do care about Twitter, we all need to sit back, take a deep breath and relax because before Twitter existed, human beings existed and got along with each other about as well as we are today.
Can the world live without Twitter? You bet it can! In some ways, it probably would be better for it.
So when a rich guy buys a company and then tries to get a return on his investment, he will try many things. Some things he tries will fail and others will succeed. Musk is playing with ideas now. LET HIM! The mass media is having a hay day with it only because CHANGE ALWAYS TRIGGERS CONTROVERSY! But in the end, all the mass media does is manipulate the minds of readers. That's right. It's not some crazy rich guy touting freedom of speech that endangers minds. It's the mind manipulating media! The same is true of election time. We have all this so-called "news" which is little more than biased commentary, all constructed to trigger people and indirectly influence votes. Why? Because triggered people help ratings and viewer/reader-ship. Yeah. It's as petty as money. Or better: "filthy lucre."
Don't get me wrong. I still like AppleInsider. They are merely playing follow-the-leader when it comes to hot button and "trending" stories like this. But in the greater scheme of things, this topic about Musk and Twitter doesn't matter. If you died today and went to heaven, do you thing the saints will be asking you about the latest news on Twitter? Think about it. There are much, MUCH more meaningful things than the need to dwell daily on what Musk is doing with something new he bought.
Don't worry. Be happy.
It's good advice for us all. Yeah, it does work. And if you leave somebody alone to think long enough, good may come of it. Leave Musk and Twitter alone, and report on something else. We all need a breather from this incessant Twitter/Musk news. The only reason it seems to be a big deal is because the mass media wants you to believe that. It's time we all stop listening to what others tell us to think and start thinking for ourselves, even if that means we need to take a break from the crazy daily news for a while.
Wow, thanks for all the information about what rich guys do and how to run a business. It amazes me the extent Elon-stans go in defending him. I mean just look at that screed. And of course it’s the usual blame the media b.s.
There’s no reason for the media to ignore a story about someone overpaying for a company by 20 billion dollars, laying off thousands of employees, putting their remaining employees in legal jeopardy with the FTC (Twitter is under a consent decree from before elon purchased it) or ruining the value of Twitter as an ad company by being so toxic that more and more brands don’t want to be associated with it.
Elon is one of the biggest trolls around. Telling other people to just leave him alone is pretty rich.
In the short term Musk will use the expertise of his extensive team to iron out the kinks, flush out the excess, learn from initial mistakes and make Twitter better then ever. My money’s on him long term.
Absolutely. He’s not an idiot, by a long shot. This will go how these things always go. There’s a lot of buzz right now, and everybody is paying attention. Companies are trying to virtue signal like crazy right now.
Twitter will be up and running functionally in no time. People will forget. And all the advertisers will return.
All the keyboard CEO’s who know better than Elon will move on to something else.
And all the morons who are going to “boycott” any business or brand advertising on Twitter will be patronizing all of them without a thought.
So now that Twitter is finally being taken seriously, NOW Apple wants out? These advertisers should be ashamed. Nothing but a political shove.
They can't take about trust and safety while trying to boycott Twitter to ensure it gets hurt. As if their tactic isn't blatantly ovious.
I can assure you, no one with a brain is currently taking Twitter seriously.
LOL. Some assurance.
Literally EVERYONE with a brain is taking Twitter seriously. Now more than ever.
Only the advertisers with money to burn and who can afford to limit their reach by “cancelling” Twitter are doing so.
Business usually suffers when it gets political.
While not tiny, Twitter is a relatively small spend in the advertising world. No one is burning money but Twitter and Elon.
The reason brands don’t want to advertise on Twitter right now isn’t because of wokeness or cancel culture or a political shove, whatever that is. It’s because the new owner of twitter posts political conspiracy theories from a crackpot “news” site and the use of racial epithets shot up massively. Now with huge layoffs the concern is that the racism and other types of harassment will only increase. Companies don’t want to get dragged into this Elon trolling shit show. They just want to advertise and they’d be smart to spend their dollars elsewhere until/if Elon can figure out what twitter is doing.
So now that Twitter is finally being taken seriously, NOW Apple wants out? These advertisers should be ashamed. Nothing but a political shove.
They can't take about trust and safety while trying to boycott Twitter to ensure it gets hurt. As if their tactic isn't blatantly ovious.
Only an idiot would ever take Twatter seriously. It’s always had a low user-base and failed to grow like other social media networks. But because of its design, is ideal for unhinged rants, which is why it gets a disproportionate amount of media coverage.
These companies don’t want to ‘hurt’ Twitter. They don’t give a monkey’s about Twitter, they are simply concerned about their brand value. All companies number 1 concern is to keep their shareholders happy, otherwise the leadership can be ousted by the shareholders. Being associated with neo-fascists of either the extreme right wing or extreme left wing of politics is bad for business as most people are somewhere in the centre.
Musk is correct, free speech is an important right, but with rights comes responsibilities. The fear is that Musk is going to allow nut jobs back on the platform who don’t take responsibility for the things they say.
Apple should take a page from Genius Musk’s book and threaten to “thermonuclear name and shame” customers who switch from iPhone to Android. It’s a great way to keep your customers happy and loyal.
OK, I'll 'fess up here. I do have a twitter account, and I follow a few entertaining accounts (at least for now). But what are these "twitter advertisers" you speak of? I'm looking at a twitter client on my desktop, and I don't see any ads. Yes, if I click on something there, I'm directed to something that does, but all I see is the 140 characters. Am I doing something wrong, because...boy...if I'm missing ads on twitter, I feel really like I'm missing out.
For social media conversation, it is only behind Facebook, WeChat and Weibo.
The ad spend is quite large. Twitter makes nearly 90% of their revenue from ads. This was $4.5b out of $5b in 2021. This is small relative to Facebook where the ad revenue in 2021 was $115b but it's still a lot of revenue. Costs were $1.8b direct costs, $1.2b R&D, $1.2b marketing, $0.6b general/admin, $0.7b litigation. Net income was loss of $0.5b. In the recent quarter (before Musk takeover), the losses have been $340m, which is nearly $4m/day.
Firing 3500 employees likely saved around $0.5b/year in payroll costs and there's an aim to cut some of the direct infrastructure costs by up to $1b/year at the risk of service outages under heavy load:
Musk owns $200b in other companies. If he needed to bankroll Twitter, at $5b/year, he could for a while and it's not likely it would lose $5b/year. Plus Twitter has around $6b in current assets so most likely sustainable for at least 3 years.
AppleInsider said:
It's unclear why Musk thinks that Twitter is entitled to the advertising dollars since the companies are executing the free speech rights they are entitled to in pulling the ads.
It demonstrates what Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey had conversations about, as does the EU trying to dictate what's permitted under their rules:
Advertisers threatening to defund Twitter and the EU threatening fines for speech that doesn't conform to their preference is restricting the freedom for people to say what they want. Restrictions are necessary if the aim is to have meaningful, civil conversations but having corporations and politicians determining this standard for public conversation is not ideal. People just assume that it's right for elected representatives to determine the status quo but imagine a time in history when people believed the Earth was the center of the universe and people were prosecuted for saying otherwise:
The modern equivalent would be that if Galileo spread his (now known to be correct) ideas on Twitter, companies would stop running ads and the EU would fine Twitter unless they were removed.
This is why Musk wants to move Twitter's revenue stream to subscriptions because it takes away the control of the conversation from corporations and puts it in control of the people having the conversations. Most of the normally suppressed content is unlikely to be Galileo quality information, the vast majority of suppressed content is justifiable but once in a while there will be information suppressed that shouldn't be.
There's probably a way to make it work well for most people. What people want is control over their association. Companies don't want their brands to be shown next to offensive content because it makes it look like they are directly funding it. Twitter would need to identify offensive content/language and users and isolate the advertising from it and give advertisers assurance that this is happening. They can give advertisers the option to only run ads on selected groups of users with different grades of content.
Tweets from the most followed account would generally be safe:
If the replying comments have offensive content, they can hide the ads when a user opens the comments or hide those replies as sensitive and hide the ads when they are opened.
It would be easier to manage if the topics were tagged by category. The most likely comments to be offensive will be political. They can have a bot tag political comments and allow advertisers to avoid those conversations.
OK, I'll 'fess up here. I do have a twitter account, and I follow a few entertaining accounts (at least for now). But what are these "twitter advertisers" you speak of? I'm looking at a twitter client on my desktop, and I don't see any ads. Yes, if I click on something there, I'm directed to something that does, but all I see is the 140 characters. Am I doing something wrong, because...boy...if I'm missing ads on twitter, I feel really like I'm missing out.
It's quite an effective way to advertise because people don't know they are ads. Apple's main account seem to not be loading past tweets in the main feed, maybe it's just a glitch or maybe that's how they suspended the campaigns:
For social media conversation, it is only behind Facebook, WeChat and Weibo.
The ad spend is quite large. Twitter makes nearly 90% of their revenue from ads. This was $4.5b out of $5b in 2021. This is small relative to Facebook where the ad revenue in 2021 was $115b but it's still a lot of revenue. Costs were $1.8b direct costs, $1.2b R&D, $1.2b marketing, $0.6b general/admin, $0.7b litigation. Net income was loss of $0.5b. In the recent quarter (before Musk takeover), the losses have been $340m, which is nearly $4m/day.
Firing 3500 employees likely saved around $0.5b/year in payroll costs and there's an aim to cut some of the direct infrastructure costs by up to $1b/year at the risk of service outages under heavy load:
Musk owns $200b in other companies. If he needed to bankroll Twitter, at $5b/year, he could for a while and it's not likely it would lose $5b/year. Plus Twitter has around $6b in current assets so most likely sustainable for at least 3 years.
AppleInsider said:
It's unclear why Musk thinks that Twitter is entitled to the advertising dollars since the companies are executing the free speech rights they are entitled to in pulling the ads.
It demonstrates what Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey had conversations about, as does the EU trying to dictate what's permitted under their rules:
Advertisers threatening to defund Twitter and the EU threatening fines for speech that doesn't conform to their preference is restricting the freedom for people to say what they want. Restrictions are necessary if the aim is to have meaningful, civil conversations but having corporations and politicians determining this standard for public conversation is not ideal. People just assume that it's right for elected representatives to determine the status quo but imagine a time in history when people believed the Earth was the center of the universe and people were prosecuted for saying otherwise:
The modern equivalent would be that if Galileo spread his (now known to be correct) ideas on Twitter, companies would stop running ads and the EU would fine Twitter unless they were removed.
This is why Musk wants to move Twitter's revenue stream to subscriptions because it takes away the control of the conversation from corporations and puts it in control of the people having the conversations. Most of the normally suppressed content is unlikely to be Galileo quality information, the vast majority of suppressed content is justifiable but once is a while there will be information suppressed that shouldn't be.
There's probably a way to make it work well for most people. What people want is control over their association. Companies don't want their brands to be shown next to offensive content because it makes it look like they are directly funding it. Twitter would need to identify offensive content/language and users and isolate the advertising from it and give advertisers assurance that this is happening. They can give advertisers the option to only run ads on selected groups of users with different grades of content.
Tweets from the most followed account would generally be safe:
If the replying comments have offensive content, they can hide the ads when a user opens the comments or hide those replies as sensitive and hide the ads when they are opened.
It would be easier to manage if the topics were tagged by category. The most likely comments to be offensive will be political. They can have a bot tag political comments and allow advertisers to avoid those conversations.
OK, I'll 'fess up here. I do have a twitter account, and I follow a few entertaining accounts (at least for now). But what are these "twitter advertisers" you speak of? I'm looking at a twitter client on my desktop, and I don't see any ads. Yes, if I click on something there, I'm directed to something that does, but all I see is the 140 characters. Am I doing something wrong, because...boy...if I'm missing ads on twitter, I feel really like I'm missing out.
It's quite an effective way to advertise because people don't know they are ads. Apple's main account seem to not be loading past tweets in the main feed, maybe it's just a glitch or maybe that's how they suspended the campaigns:
OK, I sorta get it - but I don't ever see an "ad" on twitter unless i click on a tweet (like AI's tweets inviting me back to this web site) or that when Tim sends a tweet saying "our new iPhones are out today, and they are the best ev-ar" that's an ad?
In the short term Musk will use the expertise of his extensive team to iron out the kinks, flush out the excess, learn from initial mistakes and make Twitter better then ever. My money’s on him long term.
Absolutely. He’s not an idiot, by a long shot. This will go how these things always go. There’s a lot of buzz right now, and everybody is paying attention. Companies are trying to virtue signal like crazy right now.
Twitter will be up and running functionally in no time. People will forget. And all the advertisers will return.
All the keyboard CEO’s who know better than Elon will move on to something else.
And all the morons who are going to “boycott” any business or brand advertising on Twitter will be patronizing all of them without a thought.
No, he's not an idiot. He has a very high IQ, for sure. His problem is his EQ (emotional quotient). It seems to be in the low single digits, thanks to his narcissism and sociopathy. He does well when working with things, and horribly when working with people. Twitter is all about people, so he's floundering.
For social media conversation, it is only behind Facebook, WeChat and Weibo.
The ad spend is quite large. Twitter makes nearly 90% of their revenue from ads. This was $4.5b out of $5b in 2021. This is small relative to Facebook where the ad revenue in 2021 was $115b but it's still a lot of revenue. Costs were $1.8b direct costs, $1.2b R&D, $1.2b marketing, $0.6b general/admin, $0.7b litigation. Net income was loss of $0.5b. In the recent quarter (before Musk takeover), the losses have been $340m, which is nearly $4m/day.
Firing 3500 employees likely saved around $0.5b/year in payroll costs and there's an aim to cut some of the direct infrastructure costs by up to $1b/year at the risk of service outages under heavy load:
Musk owns $200b in other companies. If he needed to bankroll Twitter, at $5b/year, he could for a while and it's not likely it would lose $5b/year. Plus Twitter has around $6b in current assets so most likely sustainable for at least 3 years.
AppleInsider said:
It's unclear why Musk thinks that Twitter is entitled to the advertising dollars since the companies are executing the free speech rights they are entitled to in pulling the ads.
It demonstrates what Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey had conversations about, as does the EU trying to dictate what's permitted under their rules:
Advertisers threatening to defund Twitter and the EU threatening fines for speech that doesn't conform to their preference is restricting the freedom for people to say what they want. Restrictions are necessary if the aim is to have meaningful, civil conversations but having corporations and politicians determining this standard for public conversation is not ideal. People just assume that it's right for elected representatives to determine the status quo but imagine a time in history when people believed the Earth was the center of the universe and people were prosecuted for saying otherwise:
The modern equivalent would be that if Galileo spread his (now known to be correct) ideas on Twitter, companies would stop running ads and the EU would fine Twitter unless they were removed.
This is why Musk wants to move Twitter's revenue stream to subscriptions because it takes away the control of the conversation from corporations and puts it in control of the people having the conversations. Most of the normally suppressed content is unlikely to be Galileo quality information, the vast majority of suppressed content is justifiable but once is a while there will be information suppressed that shouldn't be.
There's probably a way to make it work well for most people. What people want is control over their association. Companies don't want their brands to be shown next to offensive content because it makes it look like they are directly funding it. Twitter would need to identify offensive content/language and users and isolate the advertising from it and give advertisers assurance that this is happening. They can give advertisers the option to only run ads on selected groups of users with different grades of content.
Tweets from the most followed account would generally be safe:
If the replying comments have offensive content, they can hide the ads when a user opens the comments or hide those replies as sensitive and hide the ads when they are opened.
It would be easier to manage if the topics were tagged by category. The most likely comments to be offensive will be political. They can have a bot tag political comments and allow advertisers to avoid those conversations.
OK, I'll 'fess up here. I do have a twitter account, and I follow a few entertaining accounts (at least for now). But what are these "twitter advertisers" you speak of? I'm looking at a twitter client on my desktop, and I don't see any ads. Yes, if I click on something there, I'm directed to something that does, but all I see is the 140 characters. Am I doing something wrong, because...boy...if I'm missing ads on twitter, I feel really like I'm missing out.
It's quite an effective way to advertise because people don't know they are ads. Apple's main account seem to not be loading past tweets in the main feed, maybe it's just a glitch or maybe that's how they suspended the campaigns:
OK, I sorta get it - but I don't ever see an "ad" on twitter unless i click on a tweet (like AI's tweets inviting me back to this web site) or that when Tim sends a tweet saying "our new iPhones are out today, and they are the best ev-ar" that's an ad?
I doubt tweets from Tim Cook's own account are promoted but only they will know which ones they are running campaigns on. The ones from the Apple corporate account are tagged as from "Twitter for Advertisers" and Tim Cook's ones are from his iPhone:
I imagine it's purposely unclear to know which are ads so that people are more likely to engage with them. Plus they aren't quite the same as normal ads, they are promoted messages in much the same way dating apps promote people's profiles in return for money or how Google boosts websites in the rankings.
For social media conversation, it is only behind Facebook, WeChat and Weibo.
The ad spend is quite large. Twitter makes nearly 90% of their revenue from ads. This was $4.5b out of $5b in 2021. This is small relative to Facebook where the ad revenue in 2021 was $115b but it's still a lot of revenue. Costs were $1.8b direct costs, $1.2b R&D, $1.2b marketing, $0.6b general/admin, $0.7b litigation. Net income was loss of $0.5b. In the recent quarter (before Musk takeover), the losses have been $340m, which is nearly $4m/day.
Firing 3500 employees likely saved around $0.5b/year in payroll costs and there's an aim to cut some of the direct infrastructure costs by up to $1b/year at the risk of service outages under heavy load:
Musk owns $200b in other companies. If he needed to bankroll Twitter, at $5b/year, he could for a while and it's not likely it would lose $5b/year. Plus Twitter has around $6b in current assets so most likely sustainable for at least 3 years.
AppleInsider said:
It's unclear why Musk thinks that Twitter is entitled to the advertising dollars since the companies are executing the free speech rights they are entitled to in pulling the ads.
It demonstrates what Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey had conversations about, as does the EU trying to dictate what's permitted under their rules:
Advertisers threatening to defund Twitter and the EU threatening fines for speech that doesn't conform to their preference is restricting the freedom for people to say what they want. Restrictions are necessary if the aim is to have meaningful, civil conversations but having corporations and politicians determining this standard for public conversation is not ideal. People just assume that it's right for elected representatives to determine the status quo but imagine a time in history when people believed the Earth was the center of the universe and people were prosecuted for saying otherwise:
The modern equivalent would be that if Galileo spread his (now known to be correct) ideas on Twitter, companies would stop running ads and the EU would fine Twitter unless they were removed.
This is why Musk wants to move Twitter's revenue stream to subscriptions because it takes away the control of the conversation from corporations and puts it in control of the people having the conversations. Most of the normally suppressed content is unlikely to be Galileo quality information, the vast majority of suppressed content is justifiable but once in a while there will be information suppressed that shouldn't be.
There's probably a way to make it work well for most people. What people want is control over their association. Companies don't want their brands to be shown next to offensive content because it makes it look like they are directly funding it. Twitter would need to identify offensive content/language and users and isolate the advertising from it and give advertisers assurance that this is happening. They can give advertisers the option to only run ads on selected groups of users with different grades of content.
Tweets from the most followed account would generally be safe:
If the replying comments have offensive content, they can hide the ads when a user opens the comments or hide those replies as sensitive and hide the ads when they are opened.
It would be easier to manage if the topics were tagged by category. The most likely comments to be offensive will be political. They can have a bot tag political comments and allow advertisers to avoid those conversations.
OK, I'll 'fess up here. I do have a twitter account, and I follow a few entertaining accounts (at least for now). But what are these "twitter advertisers" you speak of? I'm looking at a twitter client on my desktop, and I don't see any ads. Yes, if I click on something there, I'm directed to something that does, but all I see is the 140 characters. Am I doing something wrong, because...boy...if I'm missing ads on twitter, I feel really like I'm missing out.
It's quite an effective way to advertise because people don't know they are ads. Apple's main account seem to not be loading past tweets in the main feed, maybe it's just a glitch or maybe that's how they suspended the campaigns:
Twitter is a private company and Elon can do whatever he wants. He can try and implement your plan and see how that goes. But no one has any obligation to advertise there. Especially since they have no idea what they are going to get. Several companies have already seen huge stock hits from impersonators on Twitter. This is a very straightforward private commerce issue, not a political one like the EU making regulations and comparing the two is apples and oranges.
Twitter has become a sh!tshow. A dumpster fire of epic proportions. But the parody blue check account posts were epic!! Hilarious!!
I saw on the news today that bankruptcy for Twitter isn't off the table. Is this how he operates Tesla and his rocket ship company? Jeezus!
Thankfully, no. The rocket ship company is actually very well run and it is literally changing the world. So far, Elon’s company is the only one in history to ever land an orbital rocket. Bezos can land his rocket but it’s only sub-orbital. Elon should be launching his spaceship to orbit for the first time by the end of next month.
SpaceX is successful despite Musk, not because of him. Gwynne Shotwell is the one responsible for SpaceX’s success. As with all of his ventures, Musk takes all the credit for other people’s work.
This is not true. Gwynne Shotwell may be responsible for running the company but not for the big ideas. Going to Mars was not her idea, landing rockets was not her idea, building a spaceship was not her idea, becoming an ISP was not her idea, etc.
In the short term Musk will use the expertise of his extensive team to iron out the kinks, flush out the excess, learn from initial mistakes and make Twitter better then ever. My money’s on him long term.
That sounds like what Putin fans were saying about him ‘learning and adapting’ back in March. Instead, no learning, no adapting, just total self-destruction.
Comments
There’s no reason for the media to ignore a story about someone overpaying for a company by 20 billion dollars, laying off thousands of employees, putting their remaining employees in legal jeopardy with the FTC (Twitter is under a consent decree from before elon purchased it) or ruining the value of Twitter as an ad company by being so toxic that more and more brands don’t want to be associated with it.
-- Dave Chapelle
It’s always had a low user-base and failed to grow like other social media networks. But because of its design, is ideal for unhinged rants, which is why it gets a disproportionate amount of media coverage.
These companies don’t want to ‘hurt’ Twitter. They don’t give a monkey’s about Twitter, they are simply concerned about their brand value. All companies number 1 concern is to keep their shareholders happy, otherwise the leadership can be ousted by the shareholders.
Being associated with neo-fascists of either the extreme right wing or extreme left wing of politics is bad for business as most people are somewhere in the centre.
/s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_at_least_100_million_active_users
For social media conversation, it is only behind Facebook, WeChat and Weibo.
The ad spend is quite large. Twitter makes nearly 90% of their revenue from ads. This was $4.5b out of $5b in 2021.
This is small relative to Facebook where the ad revenue in 2021 was $115b but it's still a lot of revenue.
Costs were $1.8b direct costs, $1.2b R&D, $1.2b marketing, $0.6b general/admin, $0.7b litigation.
Net income was loss of $0.5b.
In the recent quarter (before Musk takeover), the losses have been $340m, which is nearly $4m/day.
Firing 3500 employees likely saved around $0.5b/year in payroll costs and there's an aim to cut some of the direct infrastructure costs by up to $1b/year at the risk of service outages under heavy load:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/musk-orders-twitter-cut-infrastructure-213643529.html
Musk owns $200b in other companies. If he needed to bankroll Twitter, at $5b/year, he could for a while and it's not likely it would lose $5b/year. Plus Twitter has around $6b in current assets so most likely sustainable for at least 3 years.
It demonstrates what Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey had conversations about, as does the EU trying to dictate what's permitted under their rules:
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/04/26/eu-warns-elon-musk-that-twitter-must-play-by-its-tough-new-rules
Advertisers threatening to defund Twitter and the EU threatening fines for speech that doesn't conform to their preference is restricting the freedom for people to say what they want. Restrictions are necessary if the aim is to have meaningful, civil conversations but having corporations and politicians determining this standard for public conversation is not ideal. People just assume that it's right for elected representatives to determine the status quo but imagine a time in history when people believed the Earth was the center of the universe and people were prosecuted for saying otherwise:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-accused-of-heresy
The modern equivalent would be that if Galileo spread his (now known to be correct) ideas on Twitter, companies would stop running ads and the EU would fine Twitter unless they were removed.
This is why Musk wants to move Twitter's revenue stream to subscriptions because it takes away the control of the conversation from corporations and puts it in control of the people having the conversations. Most of the normally suppressed content is unlikely to be Galileo quality information, the vast majority of suppressed content is justifiable but once in a while there will be information suppressed that shouldn't be.
There's probably a way to make it work well for most people. What people want is control over their association. Companies don't want their brands to be shown next to offensive content because it makes it look like they are directly funding it. Twitter would need to identify offensive content/language and users and isolate the advertising from it and give advertisers assurance that this is happening. They can give advertisers the option to only run ads on selected groups of users with different grades of content.
Tweets from the most followed account would generally be safe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_Twitter_accounts
If the replying comments have offensive content, they can hide the ads when a user opens the comments or hide those replies as sensitive and hide the ads when they are opened.
It would be easier to manage if the topics were tagged by category. The most likely comments to be offensive will be political. They can have a bot tag political comments and allow advertisers to avoid those conversations.
Ad-based Tweets get promoted into people's feeds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xsongkm8dg&t=1136s
When corporate accounts like Apple's sends out a tweet, it's probably an ad campaign for a new product:
https://twitter.com/Apple/status/1435307157944078336
https://twitter.com/Apple/status/1569424565637611521
It's quite an effective way to advertise because people don't know they are ads. Apple's main account seem to not be loading past tweets in the main feed, maybe it's just a glitch or maybe that's how they suspended the campaigns:
https://twitter.com/Apple
I imagine it's purposely unclear to know which are ads so that people are more likely to engage with them. Plus they aren't quite the same as normal ads, they are promoted messages in much the same way dating apps promote people's profiles in return for money or how Google boosts websites in the rankings.
Twitter is a private company and Elon can do whatever he wants. He can try and implement your plan and see how that goes. But no one has any obligation to advertise there. Especially since they have no idea what they are going to get. Several companies have already seen huge stock hits from impersonators on Twitter. This is a very straightforward private commerce issue, not a political one like the EU making regulations and comparing the two is apples and oranges.
“Advertisers threatening to defund Twitter”
By that logic the advertisers are defunding me.