By on June 29, 2020

ford

On the same day that it encouraged fans to follow it on Instagram for sexy Bronco teasing, Ford Motor Company announced it will pull advertising from all social media platforms for a period of 30 days.

As you read here roughly nine minutes ago, Ford’s move comes after Honda did exactly the same. The automakers, among a number of other companies, aim to pressure big social media companies to root out and erase or ban hate speech — which can be a very nebulous term, depending on who’s using it.

That, of course, is a discussion for another time and place (and website). After going on Twitter to inform would-be Bronco owners that they’ll be able to place orders on July 13th, Ford implied that it had had enough of social media’s ability to disseminate hateful viewpoints, and would cease advertising immediately.

Per Reuters, Ford said it will use the month-long pause to take a second look at its social media presence, adding that hate speech and racism on such platforms “needs to be eradicated.”

Ours surely wasn’t the only head being scratched after this announcement, what with the company’s flood of social media marketing efforts today. So, if a social media user isn’t directly being advertised to, it’s sin-free to visit this page? Despite pressure to adopt the latest tactic in the ongoing protests over police aggression, racist violence, hate, statues of literally every background and meaning, and seemingly everything else, automakers aren’t likely to entirely stem the flow of images and information to prospective customers. Not when there’s a pandemic on and auto sales remain depressed.

It should be noted that the main focus of the current pressure effort is Facebook, where, as of 3 hours ago, you can get *extra* pumped about the Bronco. Of course, marketing isn’t necessarily advertising, even though they share body heat in the same bed.

[Image: Ford]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

54 Comments on “Ford to Honda: Hey, Wait Up!...”


  • avatar
    Lie2me

    *sigh* Here we go, Old Henry just did a little spin in his grave

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    yahoo! is guilty of the act of intentionally encouraging racism or anger about issues relating to race.

  • avatar
    SoCalMikester

    good for them. dumbass retweeting the “white power” video is par for the course. wonder if that dumbazz has been doxxed yet.

    • 0 avatar
      dukeisduke

      No one should be doxxed, regardless of how repugnant their views are, since you’re subjecting to possible physical harm. Not to mention the fact that it’s illegal.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        Duke, don’t engage because some on the radical left like SoCal think the rules don’t apply to them. They are happy for companies to ban speach they don’t like, but go beserk if their rights are infringed in any way.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Being able to speak freely comes with the responsibility to speak in a fashion that does not cause harm or potential harm to others. Saying something someone else does not like can be “hate speech”. Doxxing can cause harm.

        • 0 avatar
          Kendahl

          Whatever became of, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?”

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Kendahl – so you’d defend someone saying the Holocaust was fake? Or blacks are inferior to whites?

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Lou, careful, as absurd as it sounds there are people defending those exact positions

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            There is a difference between defending the person and defending the person’s right to be a moron. It honestly isn’t even that fine of a line.

            Besides, no generation that has ever gone to war has been given a sheet of paper that says “check the block for the people you want to defend”

          • 0 avatar
            rpn453

            I would certainly defend their right to say it.

            Do you have any examples of cultures that suppressed (or still suppress) free speech that you’d prefer to live in?

    • 0 avatar
      Kendahl

      Lou_BC: I’d rather a holocaust denier spoke publicly so I can argue against him.

  • avatar
    SharkDiver

    I’m really gonna’ miss having more ads.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Imagine if these companies did things that actually made a difference. What a concept.

  • avatar
    stuki

    I guess the marketers reckon nothing woos the feeble minded like feeble minded posturing.

    Just build better cars. And spend a hard zero dollars on anything which does not make your cars better. Effort expended on dumb stuff, only makes the world a dumber place. And hence a better breeding ground for dumbasses tweeting and retweeting for an audience of the same.

    • 0 avatar
      Old_WRX

      I assume they are only upset over the wrong kind of hate speech….

      There’s an awful lot of hate speech running around these days pretending to be handed-down-from-god pure. Bigotry has run rampant lately. But, if you’re going to put hate speech on social(ist) media, it’s ok as long as it agrees with…

      • 0 avatar
        brn

        Agreed. There’s more hate speech now than there has ever been. It’s just different hate speech.

        It’s also dividing our society and it needs to change sooner than later.

      • 0 avatar
        Ol Shel

        And you have people claiming that opposition to racism, sexism, and bigotry in all its forms is hate speech in itself. They claim that the fight for equality is a hateful attack on supremacy, and that if these people truly wanted tolerance, they’d tolerate hateful attacks on others’ rights.

        Listen, you may want what you want, and that may require others suffering so that you can be comfortable. You had that for a very long time, and it never brought you satisfaction. Now is the time to try something different, and an opportunity for you to find satisfaction in a common success rather than a selfish one.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Or, I’m comfortable because I worked my kiester off and when it came time for me to maximize my earning potential my family and I made a bunch of difficult decisions that required doing crap work to get where I’m at today and I’d just assume not subsidize people that mostly had the same options but chose not to do so.

          We aren’t founded on “common success” but rather common opportunity. I am happy to discuss the issues hindering that common opportunity and their are many being discussed. I am happy to discuss ending instructional racism, which is real and methods of doing that.

          But my level of comfort is a result of an honest assessment of where I was in life, the bad decisions that got me there, and difficult decisions to get out of it. Those choices weren’t for everyone, but they were out there for most if you needed to improve your situation.

          Now here I am at the end of that and you want to talk about “common success”. No, make better choices. There are plenty of countries that believe as you do. Funny thing is people from those places still come here in larger numbers than we go there.

          We can do better plans we should with respect to health alcare, racism, and a ton of other things, but I will continue to find my satisfaction and motivation via a paycheck which I will then disperse in the means I see fit. Kind of how this country works.

        • 0 avatar
          Daniel J

          @Ol Shel

          No one I think is claiming that the fight for equality is a hateful attack on supremacy.

          Yelling racism or racist against a group of people for varying reasons is not only hateful towards those people who in many cases had nothing to do with whatever “racism” that is perceived to exist, but also minimizes and reduces the meaning of racism and real hate.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I’m hardly ever on Facebook and never done anything on Instagram. Do these places really have epidemic levels of unchecked “hate speech” to the point that advertiser boycotts are needed? Mostly, all I ever see on my Facebook timeline are people’s vacation or baby photos. Maybe birthday wishes or new job announcements. Nothing ever rises above a 2/10 on the controversy scale. All the ads I get are targeted so it’s nearly 100% cars or car-related things. I don’t even know how I would find hate speech on Facebook.

    I could probably find bad stuff on Twitter or YouTube but even then it’s something I’d have to seek out and it isn’t like those sites are completely unmoderated.

  • avatar

    I am fed up with ads and posts from entities I did not sign up to on Facebook (I boycott Twitter). If more companies follow Ford’s and Honda’s lead and remove ads from Facebook I will be grateful them ’till end of my life. I hate all those ads that inundate Facebook! Oops, did I just said “hate”?

  • avatar

    On the other hand I think that Ford and Honda did that because Zuckerberg is a jew. So Ford and Honda are anti-semites and always been.

    Japanese blaming Jews for being racist, who knew?

    • 0 avatar
      CaddyDaddy

      Inside Looking Out, I suggest you look into the Ford Family Foundation. I’m sure as a left winger you would be very comfortable there.

      BTW this is major advertisers getting together and “sticking it to the man”. Major advertisers are flexing the power of many. Facebook will fade away just like GM, once the big guy on the block, consumers got wise after the malaise era and flocked to Japan.

  • avatar
    SnarkyRichard

    Twenty four year old actress Florence Pugh apologized for wearing her hair in cornrows when she was a teenager . I guess this means Bo Derek is going to burn in hell for wearing the dread-lock hairstyle in the Dudley Moore movie 10 forty years ago !

  • avatar
    Old_WRX

    “BIGOT, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.”

    –Ambrose Bierce

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “hate speech and racism on such platforms “needs to be eradicated.””

    No, it doesn’t; it needs to be ignored.

    More importantly, I don’t trust the censors who make such choices.

    My pro-life, climate-denying positions are already deemed to be hate speech by many people, because I must hate ‘choice’ and ‘established science’. If I’m wrong, just ignore me – but don’t censor or imprison me.

    Social media is the modern equivalent of the town square, and censoring it is the equivalent of medieval book burnings, which have occurred in every oppressive culture since the beginning of time. That’s where we are going.

    • 0 avatar
      Ol Shel

      Wow. People counter your views, and you feel oppressed.

      You’re not oppressed, just opposed.

      Books aren’t being burned. Free speech isn’t being stifled. It’s a PRIVATE forum deciding it’s own terms. Don’t like it? Start your own platform, like Reaganbook. That turned out well.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        So what was the net neutrality debate about? If those content providers don’t like how ISPs manage their bandwidth they are free to lay their own fiber and manage their bandwidth how they see fit.

        Again, government does in fact meddle in private business, or do you still see “help wanted, no Irish” signs or “colered entrance at rear” all around?

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        I am not sure some of the stuff on college campuses conservatives face doesnt cross that line though

  • avatar
    Daniel J

    Twitter and Facebook are either publishers or platforms. They can’t be both. If either start to steer the speech they allow on their “platforms”, then they are publishers and should be liable like all publishers are. They can’t hide behind the “oh, we are just a platform, can’t sue us” rules.

    • 0 avatar
      Daniel J

      And of course, the irony of how Facebook and Twitter have long been for net neutrality, where ISPs can’t moderate its users on access to their sites, but they are SAS aren’t for content neutrality on their OWN sites.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        With respect to jet neutrality, the so called “content providers” are quick to play the “people are free to start their own platforms and regulate it however they want card” when defending their practices.

        I’d counter by telling them they are free to lay their own fiber nationwide and regulate the available bandwidth however they please. Google has found out that maintaining such networks is a very expensive proposition. Better to have someone else do it and then have your politicians lean on the network owners.

        I suppose if I were Netflix trying to push 4k to every household in the US, I’d love for politicians to tell network owners they can’t throttle my traffic. As a network owner however, this could pose challenges.

        • 0 avatar
          Daniel J

          @Art,

          This wasn’t true for Comcast/Xfinity/NBC news. There is content in the form of televwision in which Netflix, Hulu..etc WOW and AT&T were threatened.

          Comcast was a bit different though if we start lumping “news” and “media” along with “facebook” and “twitter”.

          And you would be correct in that Netflix or whomever could just start laying down fiber like google does. But that is besides the point. The guy who started twitter long ago was for net neutrality in the context to access of media and information (ie, unfettered access to twitter). Now, on the other hand, where the “platform” should be neutral of the information it has, it isn’t.

          So, from my point of view, it looks as if Twitter is saying it’s wrong for any ISP to “censor” content and at the same time, its perfectly OK for Twitter to “Censor” content.

          Keep in mind, I’m all for letting the free market work this out instead of government intervention. I have no problem with “platforms” censoring content, but I believe that “platforms” then should be held to the same “libel” standards that traditional news outlets are.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Net Neutrality was never about ISP’s censoring data based on content. It is just something that never happened and it would be expensive for them to implement that sort of filtering given the amounts of data they handle. They really care zero what you look at, just how much data you use to do it. They do have to manage traffic on their network. Yes, it is 2020 and we feel like bandwidth is unlimited. It isn’t. The big content providers (YouTube, Netflix, etc) didn’t want the ISP’s to be able to ding their users and make their services cost more even if they used a disproportionate amount of bandwidth.

            Yes, there was some business in there in that it is likely an AT&T would priortize their own services, but again, NetflixFacebookGoogle and all the rest are free to run their own fiber networks.

            And yes, I am aware there were subsidies to build out these networks, but those subsidies didn’t come from the people complaining and they assumed zero risk in deploying those networks, unlike the “big bad telecom” companies that did assume substantial risk.

            In my opinion, with respect to killing so called “net neutrality”, the FCC got it right. Plus nearly all of the internet growth happened in the prior unregulated environment. I’m glad it is gone.

          • 0 avatar
            Daniel J

            Art,

            The fundmental problem I have is that the law that protects Facebook was originally designed for ISPs. It started when lawsuits came against ISPs based on the content they were giving access too.

            Obviously Facebook and Twitter aren’t ISP but are protected as such under the law.

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    Visited London in the early 1980s, and remember going to “Speaker’s Corner” in Hyde Park.

    Don’t know if nowadays Speaker’s Corner is still as wild as it was back then, when many of the soapbox speakers would make completely outlandish claims.

    But hey! It was entertaining and a good tourist spot. One would listen, have a good chuckle at the ongoing banter, and then move on to another speaker with a larger audience or more heated debate.

  • avatar

    I always thought that freedom of speech in this country is guaranteed by constitution. It turns out that’s not true (anymore). Now big corporations, billionaires and mob of rioting teenagers set the limits on free speech and introduces thought police. It may be the reason why the concepts of open society and liberal democracy is not popular anymore and developing countries (like Russia, Poland, Hungary and etc) turn away from western values. There was so much hope and good will in early 90s. All that now is gone.

  • avatar
    Dartdude

    Time to hold all social and media accountable for what they print and say. Those that lied about russian collusion and never were held accountable.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • la834: > “the Bronco II’s main competition coming from General Motors via the S-10 Blazer and S-15 Jimmy....
  • ect: I acquired an ’87 Jeep Cherokee as a company car. It was head and shoulders above the Bronco II.
  • bd2: Kia could have done better if they had more inventory of models like the Telluride (which was vastly outsold by...
  • ect: Ditto, Tim. Reality is that, as I joke with my friends, it’s hard to tell what’s a weekday and...
  • Jeff S: Ok I meant timing chain but either is bad. I believe the design was to save space under the hood. I love the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber