The first article I saw popping up today on my news feed app was a story about a dog dying on a United Airline's flight. The dog was a French bulldog named Kokito. Kokito was under the supervision of his eleven year old owner (who got the dog for her birthday), the girl's baby sibling, and the girl's mother. They were flying from Houston to New York on Monday after visiting the girl's dad. Apparently, before the flight took off, a flight attendant told the girl and her mother that the bag was blocking the path and they had to put the bag up in the overhead locker. The girl said "it's a dog, it's a dog" and apparently some other passengers said too that there was a dog in the bag but the flight attendant wouldn't listen and insisted that the bag (with the dog) had to be placed in the overhead locker. In the end they complied, the dog barked for two hours or something, went quiet, and after the three hour flight they found him dead (no surprise there).

Of course everyone is blaming United Airline's for the death of the dog, or at least, every article that I read on the internet covering this "tragic accident" (as United Airline's called it) is blaming United Airline's, but I don't think United Airline's is the only one to blame. I just think the dog owners weren't being responsible at all on top of the fact that the entire story makes no sense to me.

The first thing that makes no sense to me is that if the flight attendant really had known there was a living and breathing being in the bag would she really have demanded it being in the locker? How could this flight attendant have been so careless and not have known there was a dog in the bag? According to many reportings the dog was being carried in a TSA approved bag so how didn't this flight attendant notice? And once the dog was put there and kept barking, how didn't she hear that? How did no other flight attendants hear it? Why didn't they do anything? If the story that is being reported is true then surely none of these flight attendants are cut out for their job and if United Airline's doesn't fire them they should just quit on their own.

The second thing that makes no sense to me is how the family agreed to put the dog in the overhead locker. Would they have put their baby in the overhead locker? I don't think so. No one was twisting their arm and they could've just left the plane. The dog was also a french bulldog, which is a small breed, and it was only 10 months old. There was no way that the bag they were carrying him in was too big so it could've easily fit under their chair. So why didn't they put up a fight? If you use logic you know that such a young and small dog isn't going to do well in the overhead locker, not even to mention that no living being would do well in an overhead locker. If they cared so much about the dog they should've applied that logic and just have left the plane if the flight attendant kept on insisting to put the bag with the dog up there. If anything, why didn't they take the dog out before putting the bag up there? I know that is probably against the plane policy but at least the flight attendant would've seen the dog and maybe have understood what was going on because she was obviously inattentive. It just seems that everyone in this situation was being ignorant on purpose.

The third thing that makes no sense to me is that a french bulldog is a short-nosed dog, this means it has breathing issues. It is therefore kind of irresponsible to fly with such a dog, also seeing that many dogs that die on airplanes are short-nosed dogs. If you do choose to fly with such a dog you should make sure to reduce its stress levels because of their breathing problems. So even if it was a policy to put the dog in the overhead locker, they shouldn't have because it would obviously make it more stressed. Either the dog was going to stay with them, or they would leave the plane. That should've been their only two options. But again, this is pure ignorance and negligence from the family and mainly the mother.

The fourth thing that makes no sense to me is that they left the dog there for three freaking hours. THREE HOURS. They never checked up on the dog? Who does that? Not even mentioning all these passengers who were also on the plane crying about it on social media. Where were you in all of this?  You said the dog was barking and howling why didn't you check up on the dog? Now you all of a sudden care cause it is dead? But where were you when it was barking and stuck in the overhead locker for three hours? Cry me a river. 

But again, leaving a puppy for three hours alone in the overhead locker is pure ignorance and negligence of the family. I saw an interview with the mother and the kid and the kid was telling the story and she was legit upset. I don't blame her for anything that happened. She's a kid. The mom just looked dumbfounded that such a thing could've happen and didn't seem to want to take any responsibility. She seemed ignorant and obviously uneducated about travelling with dogs and especially with that specific dog breed. It makes me sick that people think they can just carry a dog around like it is a freaking toy or a fashion statement and forget it is ALIVE and BREATHING. A dog isn't there for your convenience; you adopt it into your family and they become a member. You are responsible for its well-being. So take some fucking responsibility. If the mother would've done some research she would've also found out that United Airlines is basically the least pet-friendly airline that exists, seeing that they have the highest rate of pet deaths of any US airline for the past three years.

Yes, of course United Airlines is to blame for the death of Kokito, namely the idiot flight attendant who was being inattentive beyond anything I've ever witnessed. But the family shouldn't get a free pass for this one. Many people would've rather left that flight than putting their dog in the overhead locker because they would know that their pet would die if they would've put it there. These people are called responsible dog owners. As one commenter on this news article put it: "If they are so callous then they should not be having pets( these are live beings no laptops and jackets)."

According to many, many, many news websites Unilever is threatening to pull their advertisements from websites which do not properly handle toxic content and fake news. Some of these news websites are reporting that "Unilever threatens to pull advertisements from Facebook and Google" but that's not completely true, since their marketing director Mr. Weed (yes that is his real name: Keith Weed), didn't specify which platforms Unilever is pulling their advertisements from, but it is pretty clear that this is an open letter to Facebook and Google.

Now, many might think that this is a smart move from Unilever. I mean, they were the second biggest global advertiser in 2017. That is pretty hefty. They probably really care about their brand. Mr. Weed wrote in his speech:

"Unilever, as a trusted advertiser, do not want to advertise on platforms which do not make a positive contribution to society,"

and

“Consumers don’t care about third party verification. They do care about fraudulent practice, fake news, and Russians influencing the U.S. election,” Weed plans to say. “They don’t care about good value for advertisers. But they do care when they see their brands being placed next to ads funding terror, or exploiting children.”

That's really fucking cute coming from the mouth of Unilever! "A positive contribution to society". Dear Unilever, where is your positive contribution to society? You unnecessarily test your products on animals, you pollute waters, and you are a big contributor to destroying the rain forest and yet you dare to talk about these two tech giants, without naming them cause you are a little bitch, telling them that they don't positively contribute to society? You are literally DESTROYING THE EARTH. But I guess you can't see your own hypocritical behavior when you can only see dollar signs.

Unilever all of a sudden cares that their brand name is anywhere close to terror or exploiting children while they pull off practices that are as evil as the ones they are afraid to be connected to.

Seems to me that Unilever is just scared that their brand is associated with something bad and people will look into the brand and during their research they will find out that Unilever is as evil as can be. I don't know if Mr. Weed the marketing director is aware of these Unilever practices but his speech just comes off as hypocritical and otherwise quite ignorant.

Next to the fact that Unilever, an evil brand, tries to tell tech giants and their creators/users what is acceptable and what isn't is laughable at best too. Unilever advertises on television. They advertise on FOX News; the biggest bullshit news source that exists, but you don't hear them making demands over their backs.

I think Facebook and Youtube need to scoff at big brands wanting to pull their ads. Fuck em. The future of advertising doesn't lay in the television landscape but on the world wide web. Both Facebook and Google are the biggest brands on the internet. Unilever can't just make demands like this. Facebook and Google need to call out Unilever for their hypocrisy and tell them that if they don't like it that they can go somewhere else with their advertisements. I mean, where else can they advertise if not on Facebook or Google; Bing? Yahoo? Myspace? If you don't advertise on Facebook or Google you are missing out. Both tech giants should kick big companies to the curb and tell them to take a seat and know their place. They need to stop bending over backwards for the $$$. As long as both platforms are doing well, these big brands will scour back. Facebook and Google need to stop acting like complete doormats for these big advertising brands, especially Google. Youtube is constantly being under attack because advertisers don't get what they want. Guess what: life isn't about you and this is the internet. It is free for all. Either you adapt or you leave. Take a pick.

I find it fine that advertisers want to call out platforms where they advertise when things are going haywire. But they all act like platforms have to meet their demands, like a bunch of bullies. And they keep bullying because no one is stopping or speaking up to them. Fight back a little and tell them to know their place. No one and nothing is perfect, everything will have imperfections and will need improving. Advertising companies need to understand this and stop thinking that they can change the world by pulling their advertisements. Maybe they need to take a step back and look at their own companies and fix shit there before trying to tell other companies what to do and fit their little agenda of perfection.