[smt88]

This is the first I've seen branding considerations described as "chilling".

Your definition of that word seems absurdly broad. Is it "chilling" that Coca-Cola can't name a soda "Rebel Red" because it would remind people of the Confederacy?

Or is it just that brands have to be pretty tame and appeal to the lowest common denominator, and issues of free speech are secondary to people actually liking the brand?

Who is trying to make ideological points through their brand anyway? And what point is "Riot.im" making that society is now losing?

[bdcravens]

Companies pour a lot of time into naming, colors, numbers, etc - all of which have various meanings in different culture and evoke various feelings.

[smt88]

I don't know what that has to do with my comment. It seems like you agree with me.

My point was just that choosing a universally inoffensive name is a very common and practical part of branding.