WorldWideLem

"Person we hired to say things says the thing" more at 11.

Really irresponsible reporting, to be honest.

I was interested in it but at the end of the day Dorsey got Twitter into its initially mediocre state, and he's endorsed RFK Jr. as well as Musk's purchase of Twitter. So should I really expect it to be any better? I'll keep an eye on it but my expectations aren't terribly high.

This principle exists to shield the people from their government. It is not intended to be (and has never been) a protection for someone's social status or reputation.

The real question is how much would I accept in payment to use Twitter. It's probably not a lot, but it surely is not negative.

I don't think it's that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.

If a person's reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?

If the company you're representing would prefer you didn't, then sure.

Let's use another example, if someone was a big supporter of fascism and was wearing a hat or mask that said, "save fascists", would you prefer the store couldn't prevent them from wearing that?

How bad would the phrase have to get to change your mind?

The statement itself shouldn't be political in its sentiment, but obviously the organization exists and it has its own policy positions, events, advocacy, and I can go to their website to donate. I think it's fairly obvious which one Whole Foods would be concerned with.

Is that legal? I know you're not allowed to fundraise off your crimes, does that also apply to civil cases?

COOL

Poor diet, alcohol abuse, and tobacco use can all certainly be attributed to corporate malfeasance in at least some part.

Couldn't have happened to a prouder boy