Elon Musk told advertisers to “go fuck yourself” during a public interview at The New York Times DealBook Summit in New York on November 29, 2023. He was responding to companies that had paused or withdrawn advertising from X, formerly Twitter, after controversy over his response to an antisemitic post and reports that ads had appeared next to extremist content.
The remark was aimed broadly at departing advertisers, not only at Disney. But Musk appeared to single out Disney CEO Bob Iger, who was in the audience. The episode mattered financially because Musk simultaneously rejected advertiser pressure and acknowledged that an advertising boycott could threaten X’s survival.
What Musk said at the DealBook Summit
During an interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin, Musk was asked whether he wanted advertisers to return to X.
He said they should not advertise. Musk described the companies’ decisions as an attempt to “blackmail” him with advertising money, then used the now-famous phrase: “Go fuck yourself.” He followed it with “Hey, Bob,” an apparent reference to Bob Iger.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →#1 Best Overall
Musk then acknowledged the commercial risk. He said that an advertiser boycott could “kill” X and argued that the public would know who had caused that outcome. That was Musk’s prediction and framing, not proof that the remarks themselves caused a specific later financial loss.
Which advertisers was he addressing?
Musk was responding to a wider group of companies that had paused, suspended or withdrawn advertising spending from X. Contemporary reports identified companies including Disney, Apple, IBM, Comcast/NBCUniversal, Warner Bros. and Paramount, although individual companies’ advertising decisions could change over time.
Disney was especially prominent because it had paused advertising and Iger was present at the event. Still, describing the episode as Musk telling only Disney to “go fuck itself” is inaccurate. The profanity was directed at advertisers generally, with “Hey, Bob” apparently making Iger a conspicuous individual target.
It was also not a direct exchange between Musk and Iger. Sorkin conducted the interview, while Iger watched from the audience.
Rank #2
Why advertisers had pulled back from X
The advertising retreat followed two related controversies.
- Musk’s response to an antisemitic post: Musk endorsed or appeared to validate a post promoting an antisemitic conspiracy theory. He later reportedly acknowledged that the post may have been one of the foolish things he had done on the platform, but that was not a comprehensive apology or an admission that he accepted all of the criticism directed at him.
- Brand-safety concerns: A report found that advertisements from major companies had appeared beside posts praising Nazi ideology or promoting extremist content. That raised questions about content moderation and whether brands could safely place ads on the platform.
Those factors should not be collapsed into a single explanation. Some companies were reacting to the specific post and its fallout; others were responding to broader concerns about moderation, ad placement and Musk’s stewardship of X. Advertisers generally characterized their decisions as brand-safety, reputational-risk or media-buying judgments—not as unlawful “blackmail.”
What Musk meant by “blackmail”
Musk framed the companies’ spending decisions as financial pressure intended to force him or X to change its approach to speech and moderation. In his telling, advertisers were attempting to control the platform by threatening to withhold revenue.
That is Musk’s characterization of the dispute. Advertising companies are free to decide where to spend their marketing budgets, particularly when they believe an environment could damage their brands. Calling the conduct “blackmail” does not establish that it met the legal definition of blackmail.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsThe business contradiction behind the outburst
The remarks exposed a sharp conflict between Musk’s public priorities and X’s revenue model. Advertising had historically been central to Twitter’s business. Brands, meanwhile, typically buy advertising only when they believe the audience, placement and surrounding content are suitable for their reputations.
Musk’s position effectively contained two messages:
- Advertisers should not use their spending to pressure him or dictate X’s policies.
- Their absence could seriously damage—or even destroy—the company.
That combination made the statement commercially significant. Musk was willing to risk relationships with a major source of revenue in order to reject what he saw as unacceptable pressure. The comment may have strengthened his image among supporters who valued his defiance, but it offered advertisers little reassurance about brand safety or the platform’s willingness to accommodate their concerns.
The setting made the tension more visible. Linda Yaccarino, the advertising-industry executive Musk had appointed as X CEO, was present. Her role included rebuilding relationships with advertisers while the company’s owner publicly confronted them.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallRank #4
How Linda Yaccarino responded
After the interview, Yaccarino publicly backed Musk. She described the appearance as wide-ranging and candid and defended what she presented as X’s principled position. Her response showed that she was supporting the company’s public stance, but it does not establish that every advertiser approved of the remarks or that confidence in X had been restored.
The episode also highlighted the difference between Yaccarino’s institutional role and Musk’s personal communication style. A CEO responsible for advertising relationships would ordinarily be expected to reassure clients; Musk instead made the dispute more confrontational in front of a live audience.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Did the comment cause X to lose its advertisers?
No precise causal conclusion can be drawn from the event alone.
Several major advertisers had already paused or withdrawn spending before Musk made the remark. The interview may have worsened the public-relations problem or affected future advertising decisions, but the available reporting does not prove that the profanity caused any particular company to leave.
Recommended Free Tools
Likewise, contemporary reporting cited an estimate of up to $75 million in potential advertising losses, but that figure was an estimate—not a settled final loss attributable solely to Musk’s comments. It is also inaccurate to say that every advertiser permanently abandoned X.
The safest timeline is:
- Controversies involving Musk’s post and extremist content on X triggered advertiser concerns.
- Some major companies paused or reduced advertising before the DealBook interview.
- Musk publicly rejected their pressure and told them not to advertise.
- He acknowledged that the resulting boycott could threaten X while blaming advertisers for that possible outcome.
Why the moment mattered beyond the profanity
The viral phrase captured the attention, but the more important issue was the underlying financial trade-off. X needed advertising revenue and advertiser trust. Musk nevertheless chose a public confrontation that treated the loss of that revenue as an acceptable price for maintaining control over the platform’s policies.
The remark therefore was not an official, board-approved advertising policy simply because Musk said it onstage. Musk owned X and was its principal public decision-maker, while Yaccarino remained the company’s CEO. But his influence made the statement consequential: advertisers, users and investors could reasonably view it as a clear signal of how the owner intended to handle commercial pressure.
It also demonstrated why a platform’s content-moderation choices can become a financial issue. Advertisers are not merely buying access to users; they are buying an association with the surrounding environment. If brands believe that association creates reputational risk, withdrawing spending can be a rational business decision—even when the platform owner views it as censorship or coercion.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
