The ice cream brand have been in a long-running battle with parent company Unilever who have reportedly restricted their social activism

  • pwnicholson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Shocked Pikachu face.

    He sold out to a massive corporate conglomerate and they don’t support his social activism.

    Who could possibly have seen this coming.

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      If I understand it they had no choice. It was either sell or get destroyed by the larger corporation. Who would then obtain the name once they were bankrupt. Apparently that’s how corporate America works. To even get as big has they had, they had to sell. Why we all know about them in first place.

      As the small company they would never be selling that ice cream in Oklahoma without corporate help. It sucks but it is how our country works under capitalism.

    • TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      Tbf it was 25 years ago, the world was a completely different place, and they had terms baked into the sale that allowed for their social activism (which Unilever has tried to undo multiple times)

      • pwnicholson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I don’t think mega corporations have been resistant to social activism only in the last couple of decades. It’s been true since at least the days of the robber barons of the early 20th century.

        • Slatlun@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Yes, this was clear at the time of the sale. I remember people talking about it and moving away from the brand.