• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 month ago

    What is this weird as fuck idea these people have that they’re entitled to a company’s advertising money?

  • madjo@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 month ago

    Maga really doesn’t like freedom of speech, does it?

    No one is owed you any advertisement on your platform. Bunch of snowflakes.

  • Tiefling IRL
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 month ago

    Of Jewish people, Fuentes has also said: “We will make them die in the holy war.”

    Aren’t these the same people who complain about being called Nazis

    • Lupus@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      Isn’t Fuentes one of the few guys who embraces the label?

      Or do I just think that because he is one of those who doesn’t dog whistle and is just saying.Nazi stuff openly?

      Either way, that dude is super scary because he is not stupid, he knows exactly what games hes playing and he is better at it than for example Alex Jones.

      Fortunately he is still too crass for regular people.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 month ago

      The Bud Light one was actually impactful for several months:

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Light_boycott

      “On June 3, Brayden King, a professor of management and organizations, gave an interview to CNBC calling the Bud Light boycott an outlier in the right’s attack on “woke capitalism” because it is the first one to actually harm the company’s sales. King studied 133 political boycotts from 1990 to 2005 and none of them accounted for more than a 1% drop in sales for a company; the Bud Light boycott had resulted in an estimated 18% drop in all AB InBev sales.”

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          The thing is Budweiser caved pretty much immediately, which also led to allies boycotting! Dumbasses did the worst possible thing, fold to a decentralized demand and piss off everyone while not even ending the boycott from the first group because there was no one to tell them they won!

      • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        Interesting. I had assumed it went like the other 133 that source mentions.

        Wonder if there’s just an extremely over-sized overlap between conservatives who were going to be offended about and willing to boycott and people who drink cheap beer that led to that statistically unusual outcome.

        Also maybe cheap beer is cheap beer and there’s limited enough brand loyalty that other types of products don’t?

            • jordanlund@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 month ago

              Kind of…

              “Although AB InBev did have to sell the U.S. distribution rights to Modelo to rival Constellation Brands as the result of an anti-trust suit in 2013, one could still make the argument that Anheuser-Busch still technically retains its top ranking since it still owns the Modelo brand.”

              They just don’t have US distribution.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          I don’t think there was any real strong attachment to it. It was a recognizable go-to cheap beer. But nowadays there’s dozens of cheap light beers, and seltzers, and mixed drinks in a can, and ciders, and I can go on.

        • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          It was the fact that Bud Light openly advertised using a trans person. It was an image that could be flaunted and would rally even moderate republicans.

          An executive respectfully writing a response detailing why they would not want their brand associated with a platform that had extreme right wing views is much harder to rally around…

          Fundamentally it’s because there is no convenient image to rally behind… they would have to read and think to be outraged.

          • Vanon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            When they figure out how to use AI to generate picture book propaganda for their followers, watch out. (Wait, is that why they are obsessed with meme images…)

  • Otakulad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 month ago

    I remember seeing on Shitter the founder of Home Depot was supporting Trump and people were saying they wouldn’t shop there anymore.

    The snowflake Trump supports were upset people would do that because it was hurting the workers. I guess it only matters when it is their cause.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Any argument they make is just what they think will have the most chance of getting others to agree with them. They didn’t give a fuck about the workers in either case just like BP didn’t really give a fuck about the retirees that depended on their survival.

  • razorwiregoatlick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m confused about this lawsuit. Haven’t advertisers always been allowed to not advertise in places they don’t think align with their brand?

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 month ago

    The last time I was in a Dunkin, there was a maga shithead explaining to a group of Brown people, why the tax policies of maga were good for them. I don’t know if his diatribe was welcome or if he had them trapped as hostages by being next to them. It was a bit surreal. Anyway, I welcome the knowledge that Dunkin won’t have the likes of him around anymore.

  • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 month ago

    “To be honest … I would be opposed to showing up on the current version of the platform—the right wing culture of the site is too polarizing from a brand suitability standpoint today,” the message read.

    This seems perfectly reasonable.

    • cynthorpe@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      If they are forced to advertise places, I’m going to sue them to advertise on my ass. I can provide metrics that show it has enough visitors to warrant at least a banner ad.

  • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 month ago

    What is it woth the right and cancel culture? It feels like there’s no free speech anymore.

    Bunch of snowflakes.

    • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Rumble/Locals is a video sharing platform, like YouTube, and you don’t have any of the ridiculous no-no words & censorship of YouTube to abide by (under threat of age-gating, deletion, demonetization). You can say words like: suicide, depression, covid, vaccine, Hitler, porn, pedophile, etc etc etc without people getting all weird.

      You can stream copyrighted content & watch a movie together, as long as there’s some banter & you’re not straight ripping movies. It’s fun, it’s like watching with friends.

      Each creator can enforce THEIR OWN censorship & values on their community as they see fit, the only thing(s) Rumble/Locals does not want to see are: porn, child porn, and idk probably like extreme gore.