They are acting like Dunkin made demands of the platform and tried to secretly influence them to censor their right wing podcasts. They didn’t. Rumble reached out to Dunkin, at least twice it seems, begging for ad dollars, and they said “no”. They gave an honest, fair and reasonable justification, that they didn’t want their non-political national brand associated with extremely politically decisive right wing media, but said that if they change they will reconsider in the future. The right are butthurt because they are seen as bad for normal national brands to be associated with, which of course makes those brands evil woke brands.
This is a literal 1:1 analog of a dude constantly asking out a girl, and she says that she doesn’t date men who wear MAGA hats and fly Confederate flags on their truck because it wouldn’t sit well with her friends and family, but she’s open to dating him if he ever stops those things. And so he calls her a stuck-up woke bitch who only fucks soyboys and wouldn’t know a real man if she saw it. And then he blasts her on social media and all of his friends decide to harass her and try to get her fired from her job. It is literal the EXACT SAME THING AS THAT.
they didn’t want their non-political national brand associated with extremely politically decisive right wing media
Worth noting: Dunkin is owned by Inspire Brands, who went out of their way to toot their own horn about how they were successful in lobbying to kill inclusion of a minimum wage hike as part of COVID relief:
So they’re perfectly happy to take political positions; they just recognize these platforms are even more radioactive than bragging about opposing living wages for their workers.
Further, Inspire is owned by Roark Capital – a company literally named after an Ayn Rand character. That’s how far out in the loonie bin these folks are. And the MAGAs are too far over the line even for them, lol.
You’re right there. It’s got fuck all to do with politics and everything to do with squeezing as much money out of their run on this planet. Also the reason they won’t take certain political positions but easily do so when it might lead to more profits.
Political lobbying is kind of inherently political, no? They weren’t passive observers or commentators; they hired lobbyists to influence the legislative outcome.
Actively working to shape the legal structure of the country to better suit their company is politics. It’s different from culture war politics, but it’s still politics.
If anything, economic politics are what traditionally drove a lot of the political divide in this country. That’s taken a back seat to a degree, but it hasn’t made it not political.
Smells like bullshit to me. Why would an ad agent give an explanation of rejection to a request for advertising? Do they do this? If so, why do they do this?
Wouldn’t shock me if they just got turned down without explanation and the dude decided to put words into their mouths as to why. Either way, though, it doesn’t make Dunkin look bad. It just makes their reaction look bad.
Leave it to the right to select a centralized, javascript-addled, Google-tagged abomination as a platform. World’s smallest violin when they inevitably get censored in some capacity.
They are acting like Dunkin made demands of the platform and tried to secretly influence them to censor their right wing podcasts. They didn’t. Rumble reached out to Dunkin, at least twice it seems, begging for ad dollars, and they said “no”. They gave an honest, fair and reasonable justification, that they didn’t want their non-political national brand associated with extremely politically decisive right wing media, but said that if they change they will reconsider in the future. The right are butthurt because they are seen as bad for normal national brands to be associated with, which of course makes those brands evil woke brands.
This is a literal 1:1 analog of a dude constantly asking out a girl, and she says that she doesn’t date men who wear MAGA hats and fly Confederate flags on their truck because it wouldn’t sit well with her friends and family, but she’s open to dating him if he ever stops those things. And so he calls her a stuck-up woke bitch who only fucks soyboys and wouldn’t know a real man if she saw it. And then he blasts her on social media and all of his friends decide to harass her and try to get her fired from her job. It is literal the EXACT SAME THING AS THAT.
Worth noting: Dunkin is owned by Inspire Brands, who went out of their way to toot their own horn about how they were successful in lobbying to kill inclusion of a minimum wage hike as part of COVID relief:
https://www.newsweek.com/this-fast-food-giant-bragged-about-killing-15-minimum-wage-1579273
So they’re perfectly happy to take political positions; they just recognize these platforms are even more radioactive than bragging about opposing living wages for their workers.
Further, Inspire is owned by Roark Capital – a company literally named after an Ayn Rand character. That’s how far out in the loonie bin these folks are. And the MAGAs are too far over the line even for them, lol.
That was quite the dick move, but genuinely asking: why is that move considered political? I’d say it’s an evil corporatism move.
You’re right there. It’s got fuck all to do with politics and everything to do with squeezing as much money out of their run on this planet. Also the reason they won’t take certain political positions but easily do so when it might lead to more profits.
Political lobbying is kind of inherently political, no? They weren’t passive observers or commentators; they hired lobbyists to influence the legislative outcome.
Actively working to shape the legal structure of the country to better suit their company is politics. It’s different from culture war politics, but it’s still politics.
If anything, economic politics are what traditionally drove a lot of the political divide in this country. That’s taken a back seat to a degree, but it hasn’t made it not political.
You’re right. If they used our political system for their benefit, then yes, it was a political move.
Smells like bullshit to me. Why would an ad agent give an explanation of rejection to a request for advertising? Do they do this? If so, why do they do this?
Wouldn’t shock me if they just got turned down without explanation and the dude decided to put words into their mouths as to why. Either way, though, it doesn’t make Dunkin look bad. It just makes their reaction look bad.
Leave it to the right to select a centralized, javascript-addled, Google-tagged abomination as a platform. World’s smallest violin when they inevitably get censored in some capacity.