[myrmidon]

Because it would ruin the whole point.

Satire aims to evoke an emotional response, to point out moral failures and inconsistencies as crassly as possible.

Social criticism that first and foremost avoids offending anyone is a waste of paper in my opinion always.

[Gibbon1]

A suggestion for California would be to update it's SLAPP law to include fraudulent DCMA take down actions. Best would be make both the carrier and the entity filing the DCMA complaint equally liable.

[echelon]

It's still trademark infringement and both the activists and the middlemen (Netlify, in this case) can be sued.

This "satire" all comes across as "I'm 14 and this is deep." We get the joke. Just use a fictitious logo.

[myrmidon]

No it's not. There are trademark exemptions for satire/parody, and have been for a long time.

Sure the companies could have sued, but chances would have been about exactly 0% for those companies to win the case against the EFF on the back of their trademarks, and they knew that very well (my opinion), that case would've probably just been dismissed immediately.

[skeaker]

You not finding it amusing doesn't mean it should be illegal.

[sitkack]

Please give up in private and not spread your apathy across the internet.

[echelon]

Just because you believe in the cause of these activists, doesn't mean this isn't a two-way street.

Watering down trademarks opens the can of worms for all forms of trademark abuse by all kinds of parties:

https://www.businessinsider.com/proud-boys-trump-march-dc-co...

[int_19h]

This isn't an example of parody or satire.