I wasn't saying that this invalidates the objection. I was (very clearly) asking them to lead by example. Regardless of the legal structure, the non-profit shou

I wasn't saying that this invalidates the objection. I was (very clearly) asking them to lead by example. Regardless of the legal structure, the non-profit should still be calling the shots, and should still be vetoing efforts like the Mr. Robot tie-in (which their reps agree with, if you follow the story). The reason I think the hypocrisy is interesting is that (as I've said before[1]) the contrast should be a source of insight, and it's right to expect a organization concerned about the public to use said insight. Here, the insight is: "Okay, you're ostensibly non-profit and pro-user and yet you still forced ads on the user. You already got the lecture on it being bad and supposedly agree with it, so what happened? What would have aligned your incentives, and how can that be applied more generally?" [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27121059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27121059