Business
Musk told advertisers to ‘go f— yourself’ and stop spending on X. They might do just that. on December 7, 2023 at 11:00 am Business News | The Hill

Elon Musk’s recent expletive-laden outburst at major advertisers on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, was the latest in a long line of controversial remarks from the billionaire tech mogul.
However, Musk’s comments may have gone too far for advertisers this time, who experts warned may opt not to continue spending on the platform.
“I think the era of advertising is true well and truly dead at Twitter, at X,” said Lou Paskalis, the CEO and founder of the marketing consultancy AJL Advisory.
Several major companies — including Disney, Apple, IBM, Comcast, Lionsgate, Warner Bros. Discovery, Sony Pictures and Paramount — paused their ad spending on the platform en masse last month as Musk faced renewed accusations of antisemitism.
The pullback started after Musk appeared to endorse an antisemitic conspiracy theory on X in a reply to another user’s post in mid-November, calling it the “absolute truth.”
Just one day later, a report from the left-leaning media watchdog Media Matters for America accused X of placing ads for mainstream brands next to pro-Nazi and white nationalist content.
As advertisers fled, Musk attempted to contain the fallout with a trip to Israel, in which he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and toured a kibbutz that was attacked by Hamas militants on Oct. 7.
However, upon returning to the U.S., Musk lashed out at major advertisers who had stopped spending on the platform.
“If someone is going to try and blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go f— yourself,” he said at The New York Times DealBook Summit. “Go f— yourself. Is that clear? Hope it is.
“Hey Bob, if you’re in the audience,” Musk added, in an apparent response to Disney CEO Bob Iger, who earlier in the summit addressed his company’s decision to halt spending on X.
Paskalis suggested that Musk already knew advertisers weren’t going to return to the platform before taking the stage at the DealBook Summit.
“Either out of hubris or a plan that I don’t understand, an end game I really don’t understand, he wanted to put the sword in the beast and say, ‘I don’t care about advertisers. Their concerns don’t concern me. I don’t need you to succeed,’” Paskalis told The Hill.
Advertisers flee as X bleeds money
Musk’s decision to spurn ad money comes after a year of deep financial losses for X, which the billionaire purchased for $44 billion last October.
Advertisers similarly pulled away last year after Musk initially took control of the company and rapidly began making changes. The billionaire fired top executives, laid off thousands of staff and followed through on promises to walk back content moderation policies and reinstate previously banned accounts on the platform.
By the end of November 2022, Media Matters reported that half of Twitter’s top 100 advertisers were no longer spending on the platform, and Musk was warning employees that the company could go bankrupt.
Since Musk’s chaotic takeover, advertisers appear to have slowly returned to X. CEO Linda Yaccarino said in September that 90 percent of the company’s top 100 advertisers were back, although some reports have indicated that ad revenue at X remains well below pre-Musk levels.
Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said he now estimates that the social media company is worth less than $10 billion.
Why Musk’s latest comments are a turning point
Even more so than telling advertisers to “go f— yourself,” Paskalis said that Musk’s decision to publicly call out Iger has companies concerned.
“That is the more concerning thing for corporate America, that he would go so far to call out the CEO of somebody who’s stopped advertising,” he said. “That freezes large companies. It paralyzes them because they never want to put their CEO in any kind of thing that would get them caught up in the middle of the culture war.”
“In that context, if X paid me to advertise on X, if they actually paid a premium, money back to the client, it’s still not worth the reputational risk,” Paskalis added.
Jasmine Enberg, a principal analyst at the marketing research company Insider Intelligence, also said noted that because X is not essential for most advertisers, it is a “relatively painless and easy decision” for companies to cut spending on the platform.
“If it was a platform where advertisers got a strong return on investment, some of them might be more willing to overlook Musk’s antics,” Enberg said.
“But as it stands, X is a very small part of the digital advertising landscape, and there are other platforms and a growing list of other platforms where advertisers can spend their money,” she continued. “So why spend on a platform where the owner has explicitly told them not to.”
With the existence of these additional venues for advertising, Tom Hespos, who runs the consulting firm Abydos Media, said it has been easier for some of his clients to stop spending on the platform.
“Continuing to invest in Twitter when we have other options and they no longer have the clout and the control that they once did, again, the decision becomes a little bit more easy,” he told The Hill.
Hespos has begun recommending that some of his clients stop posting on X, in addition to halting ad spending.
“In the instance where I have a client that maybe hasn’t invested so much in Twitter, X, whatever its calling itself these days, it’s a consideration to pull not just advertising but to get off the platform entirely,” he said.
“Clients do not want to answer the questions surrounding, ‘Why are you supporting somebody who’s posted antisemitic things? Why are you supporting somebody who tells advertisers to f— off?’” he added.
Several major companies that halted ad spending on X seem to have taken a similar approach, with flagship accounts from Lionsgate, Warner Bros. Discovery, Sony Pictures and Paramount going silent in mid-November.
“We’re hitting a tipping point, I think, where the disdain for advertisers and the creation of a safe space for things like hate speech and antisemitism, those aren’t things that advertisers want to support through implied endorsement or any other methods,” Hespos said.
How Musk, X are trying to stay afloat
Amid the storm, X is reportedly working to attract ad spending from smaller and medium-sized businesses. The company told the Financial Times that the effort was “always part of the plan,” but it now plans to “go even further with it.”
Yaccarino has also attempted to attract advertisers with Musk’s “free speech” vision of the platform.
“X is enabling an information independence that’s uncomfortable for some people,” she wrote in a post last week. “We’re a platform that allows people to make their own decisions.”
“And here’s my perspective when it comes to advertising: X is standing at a unique and amazing intersection of Free Speech and Main Street — and the X community is powerful and is here to welcome you,” Yaccarino added. “To our partners who believe in our meaningful work — Thank You.”
However, experts expressed doubts about how effective such an approach will be at countering recent losses.
“Without those big brands, it’s going to be incredibly difficult for X to be able to pay its bills,” Enberg said. “Musk has not yet been able to roll out another sustainable monetization model that would be able to bring in as much revenue as advertising has brought in for the platform.”
While Ives, the Wedbush Securities analyst, acknowledged that X could use smaller businesses to “fill some of the void” left by major advertisers, he emphasized that they can’t replace them.
“I do think there’s going to have to be some olive branch to the advertisers to get them to come back at some point,” he said.
Ives noted that despite the current “groundswell moment,” he’s not entirely sure advertisers are done with the platform.
“On one hand, engagement on X has been, I think, significant,” he said. “Advertisers are focused on engagement, so do they come back slowly? I mean, that’s really that’s going to be the debate.”
“The world has short memories,” Ives added.
Technology, Business, advertisers, Twitter Elon Musk’s recent expletive-laden outburst at major advertisers on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, was the latest in a long line of controversial remarks from the billionaire tech mogul. However, Musk’s comments may have gone too far for advertisers this time, who experts warned may opt not to continue spending on the platform….
Business
How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

As the debate over tariffs heats up ahead of the 2024 election, new analysis reveals that American consumers could face significant financial consequences if former President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted and maintained. According to a recent report highlighted by Forbes, the impact could be felt across households, businesses, and the broader U.S. economy.

The Household Cost: Up to $2,400 More Per Year
Research from Yale University’s Budget Lab, cited by Forbes, estimates that the average U.S. household could pay an additional $2,400 in 2025 if the new tariffs take effect and persist. This projection reflects the cumulative impact of all tariffs announced in Trump’s plan.
Price Hikes Across Everyday Goods
The tariffs are expected to drive up consumer prices by 1.8% in the near term. Some of the hardest-hit categories include:
- Apparel: Prices could jump 37% in the short term (and 18% long-term).
- Footwear: Up 39% short-term (18% long-term).
- Metals: Up 43%.
- Leather products: Up 39%.
- Electrical equipment: Up 26%.
- Motor vehicles, electronics, rubber, and plastic products: Up 11–18%.
- Groceries: Items like vegetables, fruits, and nuts could rise up to 6%, with additional increases for coffee and orange juice due to specific tariffs on Brazilian imports.

A Historic Tariff Rate and Economic Impact
If fully implemented, the effective tariff rate on U.S. consumers could reach 18%, the highest level since 1934. The broader economic consequences are also notable:
- GDP Reduction: The tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4% annually, equating to about $110 billion per year.
- Revenue vs. Losses: While tariffs are projected to generate $2.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, this would be offset by $418 billion in negative economic impacts.
How Businesses Are Responding
A KPMG survey cited in the report found that 83% of business leaders expect to raise prices within six months of tariff implementation. More than half say their profit margins are already under pressure, suggesting that consumers will likely bear the brunt of these increased costs.

What This Means for Americans
The findings underscore the potential for substantial financial strain on American families and businesses if Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted. With consumer prices set to rise and economic growth projected to slow, the debate over tariffs is likely to remain front and center in the months ahead.
For more in-depth economic analysis and updates, stay tuned to Bolanlemedia.com.
Business
U.S. Limits Nigerian Non-Immigrant Visas to Three-Month Validity

In July 2025, the United States implemented significant changes to its visa policy for Nigerian citizens, restricting most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas to a single entry and a maximum validity of three months. This marks a departure from previous policies that allowed for multiple entries and longer stays, and has important implications for travel, business, and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Key Changes in U.S. Visa Policy for Nigerians
- Single-Entry, Three-Month Limit: As of July 8, 2025, most non-immigrant visas issued to Nigerians are now valid for only one entry and up to three months.
- No Retroactive Impact: Visas issued prior to this date remain valid under their original terms.
- Reciprocity Principle: The U.S. cited alignment with Nigeria’s own visa policies for U.S. citizens as the basis for these changes.
- Enhanced Security Screening: Applicants are required to make their social media accounts public for vetting, and are subject to increased scrutiny for any signs of hostility toward U.S. institutions.

Rationale Behind the Policy Shift
- Security and Immigration Integrity: The U.S. government stated the changes are intended to safeguard the immigration system and meet global security standards.
- Diplomatic Reciprocity: These restrictions mirror the limitations Nigeria imposes on U.S. travelers, emphasizing the principle of fairness in international visa agreements.
- Potential for Further Action: The U.S. has indicated that additional travel restrictions could be introduced if Nigeria does not address certain diplomatic and security concerns.

Nigeria’s Updated Visa Policy
- Nigeria Visa Policy 2025 (NVP 2025): Introduced in May 2025, this policy features a new e-Visa system for short visits and reorganizes visa categories:
- Short Visit Visas (e-Visa): For business or tourism, valid up to three months, non-renewable, processed digitally within 48 hours.
- Temporary Residence Visas: For employment or study, valid up to two years.
- Permanent Residence Visas: For investors, retirees, and highly skilled individuals.
- Visa Exemptions: ECOWAS citizens and certain diplomatic passport holders remain exempt.
- Reciprocal Restrictions: Most short-stay and business visas for U.S. citizens are single-entry and short-term, reflecting reciprocal treatment.

Impact on Travelers and Bilateral Relations
- Nigerian Travelers: Face increased administrative requirements, higher costs, and reduced travel flexibility to the U.S.
- U.S. Travelers to Nigeria: Encounter similar restrictions, with most visas limited to single entry and short duration.
- Diplomatic Tensions: Nigerian officials have called for reconsideration of the U.S. policy, warning of negative effects on bilateral ties and people-to-people exchanges.
Conclusion
The U.S. decision to limit Nigerian non-immigrant visas to three months highlights the growing complexity and reciprocity in global visa regimes. Both countries are tightening their policies, citing security and fairness, which underscores the need for travelers and businesses to stay informed and adapt to evolving requirements.
Business
Nicki Minaj Demands $200 Million from Jay-Z in Explosive Twitter Rant

Nicki Minaj has once again set social media ablaze, this time targeting Jay-Z with a series of pointed tweets that allege he owes her an eye-popping $200 million. The outburst has reignited debates about artist compensation, industry transparency, and the ongoing power struggles within hip-hop’s elite circles.

The $200 Million Claim
In a string of tweets, Minaj directly addressed Jay-Z, writing, “Jay-Z, call me to settle the karmic debt. It’s only collecting more interest. You still in my top five though. Let’s get it.” She went further, warning, “Anyone still calling him Hov will answer to God for the blasphemy.” According to Minaj, the alleged debt stems from Jay-Z’s sale of Tidal, the music streaming platform he launched in 2015 with a group of high-profile artists—including Minaj herself, J. Cole, and Rihanna.
When Jay-Z sold Tidal in 2021, Minaj claims she was only offered $1 million, a figure she says falls dramatically short of what she believes she is owed based on her ownership stake and contributions. She has long voiced dissatisfaction with the payout, but this is the most public—and dramatic—demand to date.
Beyond the Money: Broader Grievances
Minaj’s Twitter storm wasn’t limited to financial complaints. She also:
- Promised to start a college fund for her fans if she receives the money she claims is owed.
- Accused blogs and online creators of ignoring her side of the story, especially when it involves Jay-Z.
- Warned content creators about posting “hate or lies,” saying, “They won’t cover your legal fees… I hope it’s worth losing everything including your account.”
She expressed frustration that mainstream blogs and platforms don’t fully cover her statements, especially when they involve Jay-Z, and suggested that much of the coverage she receives is from less reputable sources.

Satirical Accusations and Industry Critique
Minaj’s tweets took a satirical turn as she jokingly blamed Jay-Z for a laundry list of cultural grievances, including:
- The state of hip-hop, football, basketball, and touring
- The decline of Instagram and Twitter
- Even processed foods and artificial dyes in candy
She repeatedly declared, “The jig is up,” but clarified that her statements were “alleged and for entertainment purposes only.”
Political and Cultural Criticism
Minaj also criticized Jay-Z’s political involvement, questioning why he didn’t campaign more actively for Kamala Harris or respond to President Obama’s comments about Black men. While Jay-Z has a history of supporting Democratic campaigns, Minaj’s critique centered on more recent events and what she perceives as a lack of advocacy for the Black community.
The Super Bowl and Lil Wayne
Adding another layer to her grievances, Minaj voiced disappointment that Lil Wayne was not chosen to perform at the Super Bowl in New Orleans, a decision she attributes to Jay-Z’s influence in the entertainment industry.
Public and Industry Reaction
Despite the seriousness of her financial claim, many observers note that if Minaj truly believed Jay-Z owed her $200 million, legal action—not social media—would likely follow. As of now, there is no public record of a lawsuit or formal complaint.
Some fans and commentators see Minaj’s outburst as part of a larger pattern of airing industry grievances online, while others interpret it as a mix of personal frustration and performance art. Minaj herself emphasized that her tweets were “for entertainment purposes only.”

Conclusion
Nicki Minaj’s explosive Twitter rant against Jay-Z has once again placed the spotlight on issues of artist compensation and industry dynamics. Whether her claims will lead to further action or remain another dramatic chapter in hip-hop’s ongoing soap opera remains to be seen, but for now, the world is watching—and tweeting.
- Business1 week ago
Pros and Cons of the Big Beautiful Bill
- Advice3 weeks ago
What SXSW 2025 Filmmakers Want Every New Director to Know
- Film Industry4 weeks ago
Filming Yourself and Look Cinematic
- News2 weeks ago
Father Leaps Overboard to Save Daughter on Disney Dream Cruise
- Health2 weeks ago
McCullough Alleges Government Hid COVID Vaccine Side Effects
- Advice2 weeks ago
Why 20% of Us Are Always Late
- Advice2 weeks ago
How to Find Your Voice as a Filmmaker
- Entertainment2 weeks ago
Juror 25’s Behavior Sparks Debate Over Fairness in High-Profile Diddy Trial