Tbf, I've mulled over in my own mind if non-profits should be prohibited from organizing boycotts, since they're interfering in the operation of for-profit organizations, which makes for a conflict of interest. Non-profits can disseminate information about unethical business practices and advocate for legislation, but organizing boycotts should be considered a form of mass tortuious interference and open you up to getting your non-profit status revoked or even a class-action lawsuit - with donors having the right to a refund if they don't want their money going to a payout. Yes I know this would absolutely fuck any non-profit that tries to organize a boycott, and rightly so.

It's not like we don't already understand the need to regulate in cases of market failure, such as with laws against price-fixing and buying up competitors. Boycotts, when they're not grassroots, are similar IMO.

Along similar lines, maybe media outlets should be required to run free advertising for the competitors of publicly-traded companies they editorialize against, and refusal to do so could open them up to lawsuits from investors whose stocks their biased coverage just tanked. IOW, stick to the facts, and plainly present all information that's in the public interest, or else editorialize on the condition that you're now considered an advertiser, which both lets consumers know not to trust your editorializing and allows investors to sue if you sabotage their stocks by deceptively presenting your editorializing as factual.

Sorry that was a mouthful. Point is, this type of activism has exposed a huge weakness that's being exploited by malicious actors. I know that such policies would also prevent right-wing outlets from being able to use these same tactics, but I'd rather that no one be allowed to use these tactics. We can't have a functioning economy or democracy if slimy little weasels continue sabotaging the system like this.

go back to reddit, faggot.

Stormfags love when groups overplay theyr hands, it gives them a break so they can crawl back into their sewers.

Well, that and/or the fact that there have been some accounts that are “generally assumed” to be him, without using his name. Hence the return of his official account is an “official” return, but not the actual return.

It’s still sleazy wording—note that I deliberately used the more accurate “return” instead of “welcome”—because it implies that X endorsed him (when in fact Elon said he disapproves of Fuentes), but that’s probably the other weasel justification one could use.