I can't remember who has been rude and unpleasant to Tiktok and I'm certainly not going to go back up the thread to find out.
My comment was aimed at anyone who suggested that Tiktok had an agenda or was somehow 'using' human tragedy to score points. (sick face).
As said before on this thread, infant feeding in disaster zones isn't a matter of opinion or of agreeing and disagreeing or holding of any sort of political views.
It is a purely factual matter which has been examined and studied and the facts are perfectly clear and not open to interpretation.
This excellent link by policygarry puts it all very clearly.
Now if anyone thinks there are extremist nutters on here who wouldn't agree with a corporate donation, that could save lives, under any circumstances, you might as well accuse UNICEF of the same thing.
People don't have a problem with companies like Nestle because we're pissed off with them for changing the Kitkat wrapper.
We're pissed off with them because they have repeatedly flouted marketing regulations and distribution protocols which has in turn led to deaths in developing countries. Even worse they know perfectly well what the consequences of their actions are but don't care 'cos for them it's all about the bottom line.
I imagine there is more than one emergency worker who has tried to help babies who are sick and dying as a direct result of Nestle's actions in Africa for whom their current marketing exercise generosity would stick in the throat somewhat.
If Nestle or anyone else's donation can save lives though that is a good thing but it doesn't suddenly turn them into good guys.