They have the freedom to to voice their opinion, just as we're free to not shop there. We're not calling for them to be punished in any way other then revenue. We're not calling for their social medias to be erased or to be deplatformed.
You're right - "a boycotted corporation can continue to communicate, advertise, etc. in numerous ways."
A business that goes under because of a boycott cannot.
They have the freedom to to voice their opinion, just as we're free to not shop there. We're not calling for them to be punished in any way other then revenue. We're not calling for their social medias to be erased or to be deplatformed.
We're not silencing them. Hows that not obvious?
If the business were to go under because of a boycott, you'd essentially be deplatforming them.
Yes, the chances of that actually happening are minuscule, but the point remains.
You're right - "a boycotted corporation can continue to communicate, advertise, etc. in numerous ways." A business that goes under because of a boycott cannot.
That's factually wrong. They still have their social media accounts. They still have their banks.
What are you even implying?
That we cannot choose where to shop and or spend money?
Shill account is obvious. But I'll entertain. The company chose to alienate their customer base. That's whats called a poor buisness decision.
We are allowing them to speak and engage in society. We just aren't engaging back.
How can you equate that to deplatforming conservatives, from social media, banks etc aka not allowing us to engage in society?