4 ms·

>Defamation is a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences. Your comment seems to fit the profile of Brewdog, a UK based 'cr

by 45ure 5y ago

>Defamation is a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences. Your comment seems to fit the profile of Brewdog, a UK based 'craft brewery'. They are known for deliberately courting controversy. The egregious examples include frivolous claims on trademarks, misogyny, bullying, harassment, amongst toe-curling and churlish behaviour, when they appeared on a BBC programme Who's The Boss. The latest 'Gold Can' escapade is another deceptive marketing campaign, which is their raison d'être. The strategy works, as it is doing them no harm and the growth is phenomenal. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/10/brewdog-punk-brewery-beer-scottish-brewer-controversy https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/10/brewdog-pun... https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/03/brewdog-boss-regrets-disaster-tv-appearance/ https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/03/brewdog-boss-regre... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57650685 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57650685

shkkmo 5y ago
This comment seems entirely unrelated to what it is responging to... You seem to be accusing the person you are responding to of being Brewdog? Or were you trying to say Brewdog uses defamation to silence criticism of their marketing tactics? Or are you trying to promote Brewdog by publicising their deliberate controversies? I just can't figure it out.
- 45ure 5y ago
  >You seem to be accusing the person you are responding to of being Brewdog? Or are you trying to promote Brewdog by publicising their deliberate controversies? There is no such implication on both counts. I am flabbergasted by how you have arrived at your conclusion.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    I was not drawing want conclusions. I was struggling to understand your comment and those were the only three plausible (and mutually exclusive) interpretations i could come up with. I presume you had a point you were trying to make, but i could not figure out what it was from your comment as written.
    - drdeca 5y ago
      I suspect the option of the three options you listed which wasn’t one of the two they rejected as flabbergasting, was the right one. I.e. they were suggesting that brewdog, uh, deliberately invites criticism, and then uses that criticism to their advantage by using defamation law.

by 45ure 5y ago

shkkmo 5y ago

This comment seems entirely unrelated to what it is responging to... You seem to be accusing the person you are responding to of being Brewdog? Or were you trying to say Brewdog uses defamation to silence criticism of their marketing tactics? Or are you trying to promote Brewdog by publicising their deliberate controversies? I just can't figure it out.

45ure 5y ago
>You seem to be accusing the person you are responding to of being Brewdog? Or are you trying to promote Brewdog by publicising their deliberate controversies? There is no such implication on both counts. I am flabbergasted by how you have arrived at your conclusion.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  I was not drawing want conclusions. I was struggling to understand your comment and those were the only three plausible (and mutually exclusive) interpretations i could come up with. I presume you had a point you were trying to make, but i could not figure out what it was from your comment as written.
  - drdeca 5y ago
    I suspect the option of the three options you listed which wasn’t one of the two they rejected as flabbergasting, was the right one. I.e. they were suggesting that brewdog, uh, deliberately invites criticism, and then uses that criticism to their advantage by using defamation law.