Comparing a tiny twitter fiasco to the Civil Rights movement is a mistake bro.

I'll bet you say a lot of trivial things are as bad as Hitler too.

Also, stopping the use of a service is pretty much the exact opposite of just "taking it".

Nice false comparison of a simple annoyance to an important social cause. I'm surprised you didn't use Schindler instead.

I appreciate your input.

>Nice false comparison of a simple annoyance to an important social cause.

"Having to sit on the back of the bus" was considered a "simple annoyance" back then too. In fact they scolded her because she was making fuss about such a matter.

But the idea of bending over is the same -- I just magnified it so you can see it clearly. At least you now agree it's an "annoyance". Before you had it as a "non issue".

And no, a company using your account without your consent in ads is not a "simple annoyance" either.

Besides not having your consent, and you not getting paid, there are business, personal and other issues to consider. E.g account X appears in the "ad" endorsing some "Barista Bar". What if X has a competing shop of his own? Or is against coffee and stimulants and writes books on health diets? What if X is an employeer in a coffee shop, and his boss sees the fake twit as him endorsing the competitor?

I fail to see how not using twitter won't solve any of your hypothetical problems. See, this is how we actually impact change - We stop using those businesses. If it was more outrageous I might feel the need to protest further, but this is my protest.