When she sues other publications that are also calling her transphobic, but do not also call for a boycott (and are within UK jurisdiction), then maybe I would consider taking your worthless critique here seriously.
You think that kids news website was hurting her bottom line?
It obviously was, perhaps marginally, but that is not the point. In so far as you personally do not support that boycott, her proactive suppression of that sentiment is now protecting her bottom line.
And for fucks sake, how do you not understand that chlidren's news websites are exactly what affect her bottom line the most. It is precisely children that beg parents to spend money so they can watch movies or read books.
That is why most toy advertising targets children, not the parents who actually buy those toys.
Yea I'm really going to take issue that children's news sites are going to hurt her bottom line the most. I get that kids are her audience but they're not all exactly waiting in line to read children's news sites. This billionaire or almost billionaire or whatever she is will not lose a penny from that site, it's almost comical to think otherwise. The lawsuit she was threatening would cost more.
Here's an article where she threatened to sue a trans person who wasn't organizing a boycott. We can do this all day. Just be critical for a second and take a deep breath no one's attacking you.
https://604now.com/jk-rowling-lawsuit-coquitlam-transgender-activist/
She sued them because she's petty and didn't like being called a transphobe. You think that kids news website was hurting her bottom line?
Not getting into whether boycotts work or not, they obviously do sometimes and don't sometimes but that Rowling example isn't good.
When she sues other publications that are also calling her transphobic, but do not also call for a boycott (and are within UK jurisdiction), then maybe I would consider taking your worthless critique here seriously.
And the BBC for example specifically does not call her or her tweets transphobic, instead only quoting other people think that.
It obviously was, perhaps marginally, but that is not the point. In so far as you personally do not support that boycott, her proactive suppression of that sentiment is now protecting her bottom line.
And for fucks sake, how do you not understand that chlidren's news websites are exactly what affect her bottom line the most. It is precisely children that beg parents to spend money so they can watch movies or read books.
That is why most toy advertising targets children, not the parents who actually buy those toys.
Yea I'm really going to take issue that children's news sites are going to hurt her bottom line the most. I get that kids are her audience but they're not all exactly waiting in line to read children's news sites. This billionaire or almost billionaire or whatever she is will not lose a penny from that site, it's almost comical to think otherwise. The lawsuit she was threatening would cost more.
Here's an article where she threatened to sue a trans person who wasn't organizing a boycott. We can do this all day. Just be critical for a second and take a deep breath no one's attacking you. https://604now.com/jk-rowling-lawsuit-coquitlam-transgender-activist/