I see zero or fewer things wrong here. We have testing, we have it at an accessible public place, we have needed revenue generation from a corporate sponsorship. What’s the problem?
I agree it's better than no testing It's even the way the invisible hand of capitalism is supposed to ideally work But it seems extremely perverse to stick an ad for toxic sugar water over a life-saving test. Maybe it's an aesthetic complaint. Maybe it's my neolib blood
-
-
Or maybe it's that I don't think this should be an advertising opportunity. Why isn't our government, which even under theories of limited government is supposed to exist to coordinate responses to public crises such as this one, paying for testing?
-
Why does it fall to Pepsi to decide whether the benefits of advertising offset the cost of providing testing?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.