Advertisers Prepare to Rejoin X in Bid to Reestablish Connections with Musk and Trump

### Brand Exodus Hits Elon Musk’s X Amid Political Associations and Content Moderation Issues

In recent years, Elon Musk’s social media service, X (formerly known as Twitter), has encountered major hurdles, including a steep drop in advertising revenue, a large-scale departure of brands, and extensive criticism surrounding its content moderation practices. Following Musk’s $44 billion acquisition of the platform, X has had difficulty securing its financial stability, with various estimates indicating its present valuation may have nosedived to below $10 billion. The platform’s contentious content moderation strategy, along with Musk’s political connections, has generated a complicated and shifting landscape for both the platform and its advertisers.

#### Major Brands Depart

A primary concern for X is the exit of significant advertisers. Companies like Disney, IBM, and Apple have withdrawn their ad spending from the platform, expressing worries regarding the insufficient moderation and an increase in racist and damaging content. Musk’s choice to reduce content moderation has been perceived as a pivotal reason for this brand departure, with numerous firms reluctant to link their names to a platform perceived as nurturing an unsafe or toxic environment.

In a characteristically candid response, Musk told companies that paused their advertising to “go f*** themselves,” a statement that further distanced certain advertisers. Nevertheless, some indications suggest that particular brands may be reassessing their positions, especially considering Musk’s expanding political impact.

#### Political Influence and Returning Advertisers

Musk’s endorsement of Donald Trump has introduced a new layer to X’s business challenges. With Trump potentially set to reclaim the White House, some marketers are reportedly gearing up to resume their advertising on X, viewing the platform as a viable means to curry favor with the expected administration. According to media executives, certain brands perceive Musk’s close relationship with Trump as a pathway to secure government contracts or additional political leverage.

Lou Paskalis, CEO of marketing consultancy AJL Advisory, pointed out that companies might aim to get into Musk’s “good graces,” particularly in light of his anticipated position as co-head of the Department of Government Efficiency in a possible Trump administration. Such political leverage could position X as an “official channel” for communications from the White House, further motivating brands to return to the platform.

However, skepticism remains among various advertisers. Some media directors have described X as “a mess,” casting doubt on which brands might be willing to take the gamble of advertising there. The platform’s reputation as a sanctuary for controversial content continues to pose a significant challenge for numerous companies.

#### Effects of the 2024 U.S. Election

The upcoming 2024 U.S. presidential election has produced a mixed influence on X’s user engagement. Data from Similarweb indicates that X experienced a surge in traffic during the election period, achieving its highest day for U.S. traffic in 2024 the day following the election. However, this uptick in engagement coincided with a notable wave of account deletions, as 115,000 U.S. users deleted their X accounts the day after the election, marking the largest single-day exit since Similarweb began tracking these metrics.

Musk has been quick to highlight the platform’s performance throughout the election, sharing a chart that displays a surge in “global user seconds” and asserting that X has reached an “all-time high” in usage. Nevertheless, the long-term outlook for the platform remains murky, especially as it competes with rival platforms like Bluesky and Meta’s Threads, both of which have enjoyed an influx of users.

#### Legal Challenges and Financial Hardships

X’s financial difficulties are well-known. The platform’s advertising revenue has substantially decreased, with insights from market intelligence firm Sensor Tower revealing that U.S. ad spending among the top 100 advertisers on X in the first half of 2024 dropped 68% compared to the same timeframe in 2022. Only a few major advertisers have returned since Musk’s takeover, and those that have are investing far less than their predecessors.

To tackle these issues, Musk has initiated legal proceedings against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), a group comprising brands and advertising agencies. X’s lawsuit claims that GARM and its members, which include Unilever, Mars, and CVS Health, “colluded” to boycott the platform in breach of antitrust laws. Though GARM has since disbanded, citing financial strain from the lawsuit, this legal conflict has reportedly instilled caution among some advertisers, with agencies advised to tread carefully when discussing Musk and X internally.

#### The Prospects for X

As X strives to manage its financial and reputational dilemmas, the platform’s future appears uncertain. Musk has forecast a resurgence for X’s operations, particularly if Trump secures victory in the 2024 election, but the platform’s capability to reclaim its former standing remains to be seen.

Polestar Introduces New Single-Motor Polestar 3 SUV Priced from $67,500, Now Open for Pre-Order

# Polestar Enhances Its Lineup with a New Entry-Level Polestar 3 Long Range Single Motor

Swedish carmaker **Polestar** is making significant strides in the electric vehicle (EV) arena by unveiling a more budget-friendly variant of its **Polestar 3** electric SUV. This new model, known as the **Polestar 3 Long Range Single Motor (LRSM)**, presents an attractive mix of improved range, competitive pricing, and eligibility for federal tax credits in the United States. This entry-level option aims to engage a wider demographic, making the Polestar 3 lineup more attainable for consumers.

## A More Cost-Effective Choice

The **Polestar 3 LRSM** comes with a price tag of **$67,500**, which is considerably lower than the dual-motor version of the Polestar 3. This pricing positions it beneath the **IRS clean vehicle tax credit** threshold, enabling purchasers to benefit from federal incentives. Since the Polestar 3 is produced in **South Carolina**, it qualifies for the tax credit, enhancing its appeal for environmentally conscious consumers seeking to economize on their next vehicle acquisition.

## Performance and Capability

Although the Polestar 3 LRSM is a more budget-friendly alternative, it does involve some compromises in terms of performance. The single-motor setup results in a less powerful vehicle compared to the **Long Range Dual Motor (LRDM)** variant. The LRSM generates **296 horsepower (220 kW)** and **361 lb-ft (489 Nm)** of torque, while the dual-motor variant provides notably greater power.

Nevertheless, the Polestar 3 LRSM is by no means underwhelming. With its single motor, it still delivers a commendable performance level, ensuring that drivers experience a smooth and responsive ride. While it may not attain the rapid acceleration found in the dual-motor model, it is anticipated to provide a well-rounded blend of power and efficiency, making it a great option for daily use.

## Enhanced Range

A key advantage of the Polestar 3 LRSM is its **enhanced range**. Thanks to its single-motor configuration, the vehicle can achieve up to **350 miles (563 km)** on a single charge, which marks a substantial upgrade compared to the **315 miles (507 km)** available in the dual-motor variant. This makes the LRSM an excellent choice for those who place a premium on range over sheer power, particularly for long journeys or daily commuting.

Both models of the Polestar 3 are equipped with the same **111 kWh battery pack**, meaning the LRSM’s improved range is attributable to the lower energy consumption of the single motor. This increased range is likely to attract buyers eager to reduce the frequency of charging stops, especially on road trips.

## Charging Features

The Polestar 3 LRSM maintains the same charging capabilities as its dual-motor counterpart. Using **DC fast charging**, the vehicle can go from **10% to 80%** in just **30 minutes** at a maximum charging rate of **250 kW**. For home charging, the vehicle can be fully replenished in about **11 hours** using a **Level 2 charger**. These charging times are competitive within the EV sector, ensuring that owners can swiftly recharge their vehicles and resume driving.

## Production and Availability

Polestar has confirmed that production of the **Polestar 3 LRSM** will take place at its plant in **South Carolina**, with deliveries anticipated to commence in **early 2025**. This represents a significant achievement for the company as it expands its manufacturing capabilities in the U.S. **Anders Gustafson**, head of Polestar North America, expressed pride in the team’s milestones, stating, “I’m very proud of what our team has accomplished and look forward to the Long Range Single Motor Polestar 3 SUV rolling off the assembly line in South Carolina very soon and into customer hands in early 2025.”

## Conclusion

The launch of the **Polestar 3 Long Range Single Motor** signifies an important advancement for Polestar as it seeks to widen its appeal within the competitive EV marketplace. By providing a more affordable variant of its electric SUV with extended range and eligibility for federal tax incentives, Polestar is positioning itself as a formidable contender in the burgeoning electric vehicle segment.

For those in search of a premium electric SUV featuring a long range, competitive pricing, and the reliability of a well-known manufacturer, the Polestar 3 LRSM is undoubtedly a model to contemplate. With its unique combination of performance, range, and affordability, it is likely to draw a diverse array of buyers, from eco-friendly drivers to those pursuing a sleek and functional electric vehicle.

As the EV market continues to develop, Polestar’s dedication to innovation and sustainability guarantees its prominent role in the industry for years to come.

“Rethinking the Stanford Prison Experiment: Perspectives and Thoughts Half a Century Later”

### The Stanford Prison Experiment: A New Documentary Explores the Controversial Study

In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University initiated what would become one of the most notorious psychological experiments ever: the Stanford Prison Experiment. This study, involving college students acting as guards and prisoners in a mock prison setting, aimed to investigate the psychological impacts of perceived power and authority. However, the experiment quickly descended into chaos, as “guards” displayed increasingly abusive behavior towards “prisoners” within just a few days. Although the study was halted after merely six days, its implications have persisted for years, igniting extensive discussion regarding the ethics of psychological research and the complexities of human behavior.

Now, over 50 years later, National Geographic has debuted a new documentary series titled *The Stanford Prison Experiment: Unlocking the Truth*, directed by Juliette Eisner. This series reflects on the contentious study, incorporating interviews with original participants, reenactments of pivotal moments, and insights from Zimbardo himself. The documentary not only brings fresh insights into the experiment but also calls into question the enduring narrative that has surrounded it.

### A Fresh Perspective on an Old Story

Eisner began developing the documentary amid the COVID-19 pandemic, a period when many individuals were contemplating societal issues, including the protests against police violence in 2020. She grew intrigued by the Stanford Prison Experiment and noted how the dominant narrative had consistently been shaped by Zimbardo’s interpretation of events. Few of the original participants had been interviewed regarding their experiences, and Eisner aimed to alter that.

“I wanted to hear from those people,” Eisner expressed to Ars Technica. “They were very challenging to locate. Most of them were still known only by an alias or prisoner number.” After successfully reaching out to several original participants, Eisner found that their accounts frequently contradicted the commonly accepted narrative. “Every time they answered the phone, they were like, ‘Oh, I’m so glad you called. Nobody has reached out to me in 50 years. And by the way, everything you believe you know about this study is incorrect.'”

At first, Eisner aimed to refute the experiment, but as her investigation progressed, her focus shifted. She became increasingly captivated by the significance of storytelling and the ways in which narratives, even if flawed, can influence public perception. “Even when stories are filled with falsehoods or manipulations, they can still captivate our imaginations in ways that we should perhaps be cautious of sometimes,” she remarked.

### The Documentary’s Structure

The three-part documentary series encapsulates Eisner’s investigative journey. The initial episode, “The Hallway,” provides the conventional narrative of the experiment that has prevailed for the past five decades. The second episode, “The Unraveling,” explores criticisms and refutations of the study, showcasing interviews with original participants who present alternative viewpoints. The concluding episode, “A Beautiful Lie,” convenes the original participants in Los Angeles for a reenactment of the experiment featuring professional actors, and includes a dialogue with Zimbardo himself.

The reenactment was filmed in a setting designed to mirror the basement of Stanford’s Jordan Hall, where the original experiment was conducted. “We genuinely needed visuals to help animate many of these stories,” Eisner remarked. “Despite Zimbardo claiming he recorded the entire ordeal, he actually only filmed six hours throughout six days. So we required that visual toolkit, which also allowed us to explore these different perspectives.”

### A Controversial Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment sought to investigate how social roles, group identity, and situational elements might shape behavior. Zimbardo selected 24 male college students, who were randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners. The “prisoners” were apprehended by local police, processed, and brought to the mock prison, where they encountered various forms of psychological mistreatment from the “guards.”

The guards swiftly began exhibiting ever more sadistic behavior, while the prisoners grew increasingly passive and obedient. One prisoner, Doug Korpi, suffered a mental breakdown after just 36 hours and was withdrawn from the study. Although the experiment was intended to last two weeks, it was terminated after six days when Zimbardo’s then-girlfriend, Christina Maslach, visited the site and was appalled by her observations.

While the experiment is frequently cited as proof of how power can corrupt, it has also faced significant criticism for its ethical shortcomings and flawed methodology. French researcher Thibault Le Texier has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics, asserting that Zimbardo manipulated the study to yield the outcomes he desired. Le Texier’s assertions are supported by several original participants, who have come forward in the NatGeo documentary to share their narratives.

### Playing to the Camera?

One of the most striking revelations