Your reasoning below might suggest that you would prefer to go through life with blinders on, oblivious to alternatives and points of view that may be presented by others. All that McSpotlight does is present their side of the story in an attempt to heighten awareness about a perceived problem. Along the way, if they could get some converts, then I'm sure they'd be ecstatic. Besides, if you consciously altered your behaviour because doing so would be to your personal benefit, then wouldn't you have been thankful for them providing you with such information? However, if you have acknowledged their argument (as it appears you have) and decided to carry on in your regular routine, well, then, congratulations--you still excercised your "freedom to have choice" and you remain unaffected by what they have to say. No problem.: Thank you for fighting for my well being and fair treatment.However, I don't remember asking you to do that. If you are dissatisfied with any business then it is your business not to patronize that place and my business to patronize if I wish to take my own chances,live my own life,exercise my freedom to have choice. If you really feel that you must set standards and help people yourself then I would rather you join a fight against crime or drugs,which are more real problems with the world.
--
McSpotlight: It is a stated aim that McSpotlight is "a place for the alternatives to be heard". We feel that McDonald's spends a vast sum to put out an incomplete picture of their operations - a sanitised, happy picture suitable for all the family - and one that glosses over some of the uglier parts of the fast food industry.
Indeed, McDonald's has a history of issuing libel suits against people or groups that try to provide such unwelcome information to the general public - confidant in the knowledge that no organisation with assets to lose wants to risk a lawsuit with a company as big as McDonald's. That was until they tried to sue the McLibel Two. McSpotlight was started up as a team of volunteers to put the facts of the case into the public domain - to render the libel threat irrelevant by spreading the contentious evidence.
Chris, think of it as a library. You may choose not to go into one, but are you saying that they shouldn't exist, or that people unconnected with them have the right to dictate what goes into them?
None.
