We're private citizens, nothing prevents us from criticizing them for a wide variety of reasons. If you want to restrict yourself and ignore everything except the literal function of the product, you're free to do that, but you can't argue everyone else has to do the same.
Or is your argument that we have some kind of social responsibility to judge products based on exclusively on what the product does, but the product has no social responsibility whatsoever? That's a double standard that can't have any justification.
I don't understand what you are saying. Criticising a company on free speech grounds who prevent you from satirising someone is absolutely consistent. What inconsistency are you seeing?
Let's run with that.
Should a company be allowed to own slaves?
Should a company be allowed to do business with a company that owns slaves?
Prison labor allows companies to purchase labor at a rate the non-incarcerated worker can't afford to sell their labor at.
No, because slavery is illegal.
>Should a company be allowed to do business with a company that owns slaves?
They do, all the time. Manufacturing, mining (particularly of the rare earth metals that go into electronics) and agriculture all depend on slave labor.
What is the functional difference between the two besides more paperwork and another middle man taking a cut?