Twitter supports “freedom of speech,” but advertisers don't have to pay for it. So, they won't.

I have been watching, like all of you , the Elon Twitter saga. I started writing a rant , then changed and have kept revising for a few weeks. It was going to be about all of the verified account debacles but I kept changing.

Anywho.... I have a dinner table law degree, which means I understand this stuff but don't take my legal advice. I do understand advertising.

Elon has been loud about Free Speech pointing towards Apple and advertisers for not supporting free speech. Elon has said that the new twitter is all about Free Speech. He is allowing people who have been removed, back on the platform.

The first amendment concerns governmental restriction of speech. Twitter is a hot mess, but last I checked, it is not a government body.

 Twitter is a social platform and has been. According to the law Section 230 (Communications Decency Act), a user can say whatever they want on the platform and Twitter is protected--but NOT the user. For example, if an advertiser engaged in slander or promoting a false claim,Twitter would be protected by the statute, but the advertiser would not be.

So in theory, anything can be published on these platforms. Beheading and other violent acts make it onto these platforms. These platforms CAN'T vet EVERY submission before posting, imagine if they had to? So this has allowed all of the platforms almost a free pass on protecting vs hate, porn, fake news, and other ills of the world.

Twitter, Facebook, Tik Tok etc all have large Trust and Brand Safety teams (or had).

Why?

First, because they want to protect the user and their community first and foremost.

Second because advertisers DON'T want to be adjacent to or support anything that could tarnish their brand.

Hate is top or close to the top on what advertisers don't want.

Section 230 could have made the platform Brand Safety Team optional, although all of the platforms decided to build out these teams to provide a healthy and safe community environment. Users could be suspended for violating the community guidelines. Sure advertising does play a role in the guidelines but is really about protecting the users. Advertisers want a safe environment for their brand. Twitter is losing advertisers because they are just not providing them a good environment or community. Musk is equating advertisers' influence on maintaining some level of "safety" as hurting "free speech". Twitter has become a cesspool of chaos. Cesspool and Chaos are not good advertising environments.

First understand the advertising ecosystem.

If Site A had 3,000,000 unique users and content was about Food.

If Site B had 1,000,000 unique users and content was about Health

If Site C had 250,000 unique users and content was about Health and Food.

 What would the media buyer buy?

The answer . Whomever took them to the game last night...or a mani/pedi last week. While I am joking, media's decisions are often based on a lot of variables and some can be subjective. Advertising is arbitrary and not binary. It is beyond ones and zeros which Elon does understand. Branding, which can be subjective is different. Advertisers don't just want a lot of users. They want the right user in the right space without a risk of damaging their brand.

That is why he does not understand since Twitter has a lot of unique users advertisers should adore him, but they don’t. Advertisers have other options to place their media. See the Terence Kawaja  Luma Chart or the  Scott Brinker MarTech chart 

Twitter was never a must buy, and the unfettered Twitter would likely be worse.

Twitter supports “freedom of speech,” but advertisers don't have to pay for it. So, they won't.