From: Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
   On 12/04/2016 03:56 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
   >> And of course you say that's not a political action, and is the same
   >> as these other supposed companys who did not make such public
   >> statements.
   >Kellogg's wanted to retain their customers. Their customers didn't
   want
   the company supporting Breitbart with advertising.
   You are writing this as if there is only one kind of Kelloggs customer,
   and that customer
    "Their customers didn't want  the company supporting Breitbart with
   advertising. "
   Well, I'm a Kelloggs customer, and while before I heard this I didn't
   care whether
   Kelloggs advertised on Breitbart, now I do.  I find it amazingly biased
   and PC
   that Kelloggs would refuse to advertise for an obviously bogus reason,
   one that it clearly
   won't apply to advertising on other media organizations, or marketing
   in other nations
   around the world.
   >So, they quit
   >advertising on Breitbart. I don't blame them; their shareholders would
   >throw a shitfit if they lost customers by continuing to run their ads
   in
   >spite of known customer dissatisfaction with what is being paid for by
   those ads,
   Presumably, Kelloggs has at millions of regular customers, and millions
   have
   "customer dissatisfaction" with a lot of external facts.  But I
   strongly doubt that more than
   a tiny fraction of those customers are wacky enough to insist that
   Kelloggs refuse to put
   advertising on a site based solely on some vague idea of political
   orientation.
   At this point, I am inclined to join the anti-Kelloggs boycott.  I
   access the Breitbart
   website an average of once a year or so, but I find such lame and
   unjustified attempts
   to obstruct freedom of speech to be detestable.
                        Jim Bell