this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2026
1279 points (98.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

12098 readers
1661 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tippy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The FCC being useless and bought off still doesn't mean that Callaway gets special first amendment protections. They're a corporation, they aren't protected from consumers and retailers dropping their products for promoting crimes, or from potential lawsuits as a result of harmful marketing.

Again, this topic has nothing to do with free speech.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I bring it up because companies which broadcast and publish material are generally given greater deference by the public for showing material they disagree with. As long as the standards are adhered to evenly, the broadcaster isn't going to be boycotted for an ad. No one is boycotting the television stations and streamers for airing this ad; all the attention is going to Calloway.

The consequences of free speech are felt by those paying for it in public opinion, not those serving it.

[–] Tippy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This post is about Costco boycotting the company who commissioned and approved the ad to represent them and their products. How would you propose costco boycotts a TV network that they have no direct ties to? You do understand costco is a retail chain that sells physical products, in physical stores. They don't operate the TV networks or manage internet personalities and their sponsors. Short of putting out broad statements claiming NBC or Fox or whoever support domestic violence (which would open them up to slander and libel lawsuits that they'd very likely lose), I don't know what else you're demanding they do. They stopped doing business with Callaway by no longer promoting or offering their products.

Again, none of this has anything to do with your right to address or protest the US government. I'm starting to think you might not have ever actually read the bill of rights.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Costco is, in part, responding to public opinion on how tasteless the ads are. I'm not expecting Costco to organize a boycott of a media company for showing the ad and I'm saying they should.

What I'm saying is that NO ONE is going to organize a boycott against a company for showing an ad in bad taste, especially if the ad meets standards and practices for the FCC. They'll go after the company paying for the advertisement.

And I'm not saying it is written in the Constitution that this protection explicitly exists. I'm saying that the culture surrounding that free speech protection gives broadcasters and publishers far less ownership of what the ads they serve say compared to other countries.

I bring it up because you asked the question about why didn't anybody else stop this ad from being broadcast. Why? Because the risk to everyone else was near zero.

[–] Tippy@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Boycotting a private company has nothing to do with free speech. I'm also not sure what a "culture of free speech" is. Free speech in the US is a specific set of constitutional laws. If you're talking about philosophical "free" speech, that's an entirely different topic and not legally bound or functional, so pretty irrelevant to this topic.

I never asked you or anyone else anything about this ad or what is being done about it, what are you talking about? At this point I'm assuming I'm likely arguing with an LLM from all of the bizarre irrelevant points and hallucations being made.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 day ago

Well, I feel like I'm trying to explain my logic in how it is linked and you keep resetting each time to the beginning without processing what I've said.

You don't seem to want to understand and you're hyperfixating on a few words and ignoring the other parts of the argument I'm making.