Please stop doing the fuckin reddit hivemind thing. This thread is full of people shitting on X but noone bringing up how absolutely horrible this article is. From the top the author clearly has done zero research into the advertising suit the article it’s titled about. Has there been a mass internet censoring movement that I missed? Since when has the shock and awe content failed to draw audiences en mass? Either way the writer goes off on this rant about the moral compass of internet content consumers being out off by negative content. Aside from the ridiculousness of the claim, the author at multiple points admits to their admitted speculation being truth. Didn’t take much to click on the link provided that is supposed to support his estimate that X lost 80% of its advertisement revenue THEN LINKS TO A YAHOO ARTICLE ABOUT THE SHARE VALUE DROPPING 84%🤣 I mean come on manual there are educated ways shit on X that are fuckin lay ups and this asshat can’t even avoid writing made up shit. His only other link that isn’t to other articles written by Gizmodo was a link to an article that is 6 fuckin years old speculating if Youtube would survive “adocalypse” back in 2017. Basically proving that the morality of the content doesn’t dictate the loyalty of the consumer or the very competitive nature of the marketing and advertising industries. Last fuckin point that irked from the comments is the notion like this company is being bullied by musk/X or whomever to back out of the lawsuit… theyre a fuckin $150 BILLION corporation. If they are pulling out of thr lawsuit, its because their board members felt ut was in their bottom line’s best interest not because they’re any mother Theresa. OK I swear to God this is my last bitch but I missed it on my initial read but THE FUCKING TITLE IS EVEN A BELLIGERENT LIE HAHAHAHA Unilever wasn’t fucking sued into submission like the fuking title literally says, they themselves pulled out of their decision and rejoined the X ad stream. Idiot author even tries spinning that as a David and Goliath bullshit by saying it’s assumed it was because X was making them pay for leaving!!! The only fuckin way a multi billion dollar corporation is being “forced” to payq fuckall is if it’s in a contract that will uphold in court. 🤣🤣🤣 Chatgpt can fuck this publication all day long out of real live journalists if this is the trash they’re putting out.
I get your point but the person you are responding to is 100% on the right side of this paragraph-less fence. I just started rage ramble typing. I’ll make some quick edits to my comment wall of text when I get home from the Browns Philly game if I can still type lol
Oh, this wasn’t to take from his point, I didn’t even read your comment in the first place. Hilarious reply though. It just triggered another pet peeve of mine
I admit I’m guilty on Lemmy of too-short paragraphs, but it’s usually more as a conversational emphasis thing. For example, I’d say something like this: "I was traveling down the road and I saw this dog. It looked back at me and we just stared at each other for a while.
Then the dog spoke."
But better short sentences separated by carriage returns than no paragraphs in my opinion.
Please stop doing the fuckin reddit hivemind thing. This thread is full of people shitting on X but noone bringing up how absolutely horrible this article is. From the top the author clearly has done zero research into the advertising suit the article it’s titled about. Has there been a mass internet censoring movement that I missed? Since when has the shock and awe content failed to draw audiences en mass? Either way the writer goes off on this rant about the moral compass of internet content consumers being out off by negative content. Aside from the ridiculousness of the claim, the author at multiple points admits to their admitted speculation being truth. Didn’t take much to click on the link provided that is supposed to support his estimate that X lost 80% of its advertisement revenue THEN LINKS TO A YAHOO ARTICLE ABOUT THE SHARE VALUE DROPPING 84%🤣 I mean come on manual there are educated ways shit on X that are fuckin lay ups and this asshat can’t even avoid writing made up shit. His only other link that isn’t to other articles written by Gizmodo was a link to an article that is 6 fuckin years old speculating if Youtube would survive “adocalypse” back in 2017. Basically proving that the morality of the content doesn’t dictate the loyalty of the consumer or the very competitive nature of the marketing and advertising industries. Last fuckin point that irked from the comments is the notion like this company is being bullied by musk/X or whomever to back out of the lawsuit… theyre a fuckin $150 BILLION corporation. If they are pulling out of thr lawsuit, its because their board members felt ut was in their bottom line’s best interest not because they’re any mother Theresa. OK I swear to God this is my last bitch but I missed it on my initial read but THE FUCKING TITLE IS EVEN A BELLIGERENT LIE HAHAHAHA Unilever wasn’t fucking sued into submission like the fuking title literally says, they themselves pulled out of their decision and rejoined the X ad stream. Idiot author even tries spinning that as a David and Goliath bullshit by saying it’s assumed it was because X was making them pay for leaving!!! The only fuckin way a multi billion dollar corporation is being “forced” to payq fuckall is if it’s in a contract that will uphold in court. 🤣🤣🤣 Chatgpt can fuck this publication all day long out of real live journalists if this is the trash they’re putting out.
Meet English (American?) News websites where every sentence is their own paragraph, I hate it
I get your point but the person you are responding to is 100% on the right side of this paragraph-less fence. I just started rage ramble typing. I’ll make some quick edits to my comment wall of text when I get home from the Browns Philly game if I can still type lol
Oh, this wasn’t to take from his point, I didn’t even read your comment in the first place. Hilarious reply though. It just triggered another pet peeve of mine
I admit I’m guilty on Lemmy of too-short paragraphs, but it’s usually more as a conversational emphasis thing. For example, I’d say something like this: "I was traveling down the road and I saw this dog. It looked back at me and we just stared at each other for a while.
Then the dog spoke."
But better short sentences separated by carriage returns than no paragraphs in my opinion.
A literate person takes grammar and spelling seriously - - - writers prefer clarity and creativity over conformity.