“Something really struck me about the language he was using here. “Blackmail”? “Earth”? “We will document it in great detail”? Blackmail him to do what? What does he imagine this is about?”

He imagines it is about the good old “advertisers blackmailing a newspaper/magazine to get it to abide by their politics”. Something as old as mainstream media and advertising, in its 21st century social media version.

Which is pretty much what is going on.

Now, “Earth” might seem like an odd choice of wording, but what he means is clear: “let the global public decide whether this is a blackmail/sabotage or not”

““They’re trying to destroy free speech in America.” Note that he doesn’t believe “free speech” will simply be an unfortunate casualty of the passive cowardice of advertisers fleeing X; he believes that advertisers’ fleeing X is a deliberate attempt to “destroy free speech.””

He is not that off about thinking that either. By this time, major companies appear to care more about pushing dominant themes (from partisan politics to “woke” ideology) than about actual sales. To the point of actively alienating their target groups.

Perhaps the intended audience to laud their ads is not actual consumers and the public at large, but media pundits. The executives doing this are going to get paid and have their golden parachutes open anyway, whatever the result.

In any case, if he played with Democrat-friendly partisan rules he’d have no problem whatsoever.