If you are a business customer just tell them that you aren't buying from them because you don't like the olympics attitude. Then wherever-the-f* 2016 will have a little more difficulty finding suckers.
> Then wherever-the-f* 2016 will have a little more difficulty finding suckers.
You think? Somehow I don't imagine BP or P&G or Cisco saying 2016 Olymipcs committee: "sorry, we couldn't sponsor you anymore, that excuse-me guy from Hacker News really got us in the tough spot, so we have to choose between being associated one of most watched and admired events in the world and his business, so we can't really do anything here. Maybe in 2020..." Olympics are popular, probably vastly more popular than the Hijackers bunch, that describe themselves as "We're a bunch of fuck-wits". I have nothing against them having their fun, provided they don't hurt anybody, but given the existing trademark laws, it is hard to expect a different outcome. And if you plan to boycott every business that defends their trademark, you have a lot of boycotting to do...
Companies are extremely sensitive to their public image and want the sports they sponsor to match that.
Formula 1's image used to be exclusive/glamour/rich and so had Rolex type sponsors. Then when tobacco adverts were banned it went after young/adventure/excitement types.
But do RedBull really want their cool/hip/trendy young customers in Seattle to picture RedBull with police shooting democracy protesters at the Bahrain GP?
For example, IBM sponsor golf - Apple don't. IBM's customers don't care that the golf tournament is being held at a course that doesn't let women in - Apple's certainly would!
BP - frankly they could put baby seals into a wood chipper on national television without damaging their public image!
But CISCO are the most vulnerable to image. Up to now they sold to big business who just bought on a salesman's word. But now they are trying to be the face of the internet to regular buyers. Having their name plastered across news reports about visitors to the olympics being banned from posting twitter/youtube/facebook doesn't look so good.
Nobody was banned from posting to twitter. What was banned is the use of specific image - similar to registered trademark. And somebody like Cisco has nothing to do with it, so you are trying to build a chain starting with event that did not happen and going to the people that had no connection.
You're playing with words. An account definitely was banned/blocked/suspended/whatever due to "the use of a specific image". But it's the account that was blocked, not the image as you imply.
No I am not. "Banned from twitter" means that person/organisation was prohibited from using Twitter. That is not what happened - account was temporarily suspended because of the usage of trademarked image (not because of its ownership or content) and if they stop using the trademarked image they could post to twitter as much as they wish. Nobody censors them because they offended the mighty 1% (these constant knee-jerk allegations really are getting tiresome). Their account is suspended for using trademark that doesn't belong to them - that would happen with any trademark in any situation. Try using Coca-Cola logo in your twitter account and if Coca-Cola learns about it your account most probably will be suspended. Not because Coca-Cola hates you but because you're using their trademark.
And the makers believe the olympics=popular=worth sponsoring message.
If someone like Cisco got the message that Olympics = expensive / anti-social / corrupt, then they might not be rushing to sponsor it. That's why `cool` web companies don't sponsor golf or yachting
