Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
Nate Silver with a classic Sklanskian "all actors concerned are perfectly rational" take.
God yes, it would be so awful if no political content was advertiser-supported. Unthinkable.
This is ridiculously simple. Companies advertise to sell stuff. If the place they choose to present their ads bothers enough people to protest and/or take action by boycotting them then they get to decide if they want to continue to run the ads in those places.
There is no alternative timeline or fix for people boycotting advertisers. In fact it’s one of the only weapons consumers of all goods have. More importantly as the actual content being sold between tv networks and advertising agencies it is one of only two options. The boycott is effective for those who never did or already stopped viewing the content itself.
The pearl clutching is ridiculous by these yamrods.
People are free to boycott businesses for pretty much any reason they want. I won’t ever eat at a Chipotle again after getting deathly sick in 2 out of 3 visits. Do I actively promote this or try to dissuade others? Not really. But I could if I so desired.
To be honest I am a bit boggled that people have a take that they find boycotts to be distasteful. Of course when they are being done by people whose entire business is based on advertising revenue it is lol.