If you truly value art and expression, then why do you oppose people expressing themselves when they say they don't like the ad?
The society you want is the one we have - an expression was made by Apple, and in response, thousands of artists have made their own expressions. This is what a society of free expression looks like.
The world you're arguing for would be one where the expressions of tech companies are beyond reproach and other people are not allowed to express themselves in response. Why should tech companies get that special treatment?
In my opinion, it says something about your mentality that you value the expression of one group but not the other.
I hate this idea - this apparent concern that Apple is getting "silenced". There is no such thing as being "silenced" when you're a billion dollar company. Moreover, the apparent "silencing" is simply people using their freedom of expression to voice an opinion of opposition. It is the core feature of being able to express oneself.
The ability of these common artists being able to speak their true thoughts against a billion dollar institution - and the institution feeling pressure to respond to them - is the whole point of having the freedom of expression. What else is even the point of allowing discussion, dissent, and expression if you don't want those to have any chance of affecting some outcome?
Interesting. I didn't say any of that. I'm saying "outrage" is too strong. You don't need to cancel someone else to express yourself. Note the downvotes for example.
The society you want is the one we have - an expression was made by Apple, and in response, thousands of artists have made their own expressions. This is what a society of free expression looks like.
The world you're arguing for would be one where the expressions of tech companies are beyond reproach and other people are not allowed to express themselves in response. Why should tech companies get that special treatment?
In my opinion, it says something about your mentality that you value the expression of one group but not the other.
I hate this idea - this apparent concern that Apple is getting "silenced". There is no such thing as being "silenced" when you're a billion dollar company. Moreover, the apparent "silencing" is simply people using their freedom of expression to voice an opinion of opposition. It is the core feature of being able to express oneself.
The ability of these common artists being able to speak their true thoughts against a billion dollar institution - and the institution feeling pressure to respond to them - is the whole point of having the freedom of expression. What else is even the point of allowing discussion, dissent, and expression if you don't want those to have any chance of affecting some outcome?