Of course companies put money before political ideology, as a public company, it can be considered an obligation to their shareholders. The part that matters is that their customers may have political ideologies, and it is important for a company to match the ideologies of the customers who make them the most money, at least in appearance.
Seriously though, I certainly don’t want my companies to have political ideologies. Follow the law, be good to customers and serve everyone.
The only reason they left was politics.
By which metric? Even Elon has admitted they're not making money.
Revenue is down with the advertisers leaving but costs are down so much, I think it’s recently profitable or will be soon? And with advertising coming back on top of the new cost structure, it should be a cash cow.
No that's not what Elon said and the tweet he was replying to is a nobody with zero data.
[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-antisemitic-comments-...
The TikTok law was meant to force divesture to a US company. The Supreme Court ruled on the legality of it at the very last minute, so there is broad bipartisan support for more time to find an acquirer, including Biden saying he won't enforce it on the last day in office.
They know a lot of Americans depend on it for livelihood and entertainment.
> They know a lot of Americans depend on it for livelihood and entertainment.
Yes because President Musk has showed real concerns about putting people out of work
Twitter does, though.
That seems to be the truth.
Explain? Because if it was politically dangerous, it automatically means it wasn’t profitable.
Advertising was dangerous because there was a perception that the previous US government would politically prosecute anyone who opposed them. Companies advertising on X, and hence supporting opposition such as Musk, would fall into this category.
Not sure where this would fit into the law though something like this would certainly curtail cancel culture like activity.
Look up “no duty to deal”.
Could a be a “facts and circumstances” type of legislation similar to the IRS. Many IRS rules go back to the “facts and circumstances” of a particular case to evaluate all the nuances relating to it.
What "facts and circumstances" are we interested in? Your original post mentioned ending business relationships due to political stances. Did you mean the political stance of the advertisers, the platform hosting ads, some third party or parties, a combination of the above, or something I've missed?
There, I fixed the headlines for you.