Hacker News Reader

Comment by sanderjd | Hacker News Reader

I don't think awareness that corporations are out for profit and not your friend is incompatible with pushing back on corporations who are curating an image of support for certain causes and are then acting in ways at odds with that image. In fact, I think it is necessary in order to understand how to push back. They are not your friend so they don't care about your disappointment, but they are out for profit so they do care about the things you can do to affect that: personally boycotting, organizing boycotts, spreading bad word of mouth, etc.

Maybe your perspective is that corporations shouldn't do this image curation thing, and yeah maybe so, but in a world where they do, it absolutely makes sense for individuals to push back on them when they are then hypocritical. Otherwise they get the benefits of standing for causes without taking on the risks inherent in doing so.

View on HN

But, a business does not make decisions. The people of that organization make the decisions. We must pierce the veil and hold the individuals accountable. Start picketing their house, where they eat, everywhere they go.

The folks that care should really be taking lessons from the anti-abortion people picket outside of a physicians home.

> Start picketing their house, where they eat, everywhere they go.

Certainly you will be the first to take time out of your day to do this....

>The folks that care should really be

Key words there.

Eh... buisnesses are not just collections of people acting in a vacuum, though. The structure of the business drives certain decisions. I'm not saying it's a hive-mind, but pretending a business is just a bunch of individuals is too reductionist.

Also, since ActiBlizz is a publicly traded corporation, there are people in that organization that are legally or contractually obligated to make decisions in the best interest of ActiBlizz.

>The structure of the business drives certain decisions. I'm not saying it's a hive-mind, but pretending a business is just a bunch of individuals is too reductionist. Also, since ActiBlizz is a publicly traded corporation, there are people in that organization that are legally or contractually obligated to make decisions in the best interest of ActiBlizz.

Sure, but at the same time executives in these organizations do have power. Twitter just walked away from that sweet political ad money for ethical reasons, for example. You just have to find the correct arms to twist.

For not allowing a comment on their platform? Really?

Go boycott the company. Make sure to make it clear that bad actions will have consequences. But please, do not go bully random people.

>For not allowing a comment on their platform? Really?

Huh, I thought it was obvious to folks as to what people are upset about. It's not about preventing a comment on their platform.

And of course they can limit whatever comments they like. I suspect blizz_ack would also not want racist, or other discriminatory language, displayed on their platform.

>Go boycott the company. Make sure to make it clear that bad actions will have consequences.

It won't work. To make a dent in a company of that size, a significant portion of their user base would need to cease buying products. That simply won't happen.

>But please, do not go bully random people.

Oh please..these are far from random people. There is no place on this Earth for folks that place greed over the greater good of the people.

>Start picketing their house, where they eat, everywhere they go.

This sounds so obnoxious and short-sighted.

If I own a business that doesn't align with your values, it's one thing to boycott and protest my business. It's another thing to follow me around to a restaurant, dentist, or park to protest my business decisions. You're disturbing the enjoyment of those places for other people who might have nothing to do with my decisions. I suppose spouses, children and even extended family should have to endure this as well?

>This sounds so obnoxious and short-sighted.

The intent is to be obnoxious. But I'm not seeing how it's short sighted.

>If I own a business that doesn't align with your values, it's one thing to boycott and protest my business. It's another thing to follow me around to a restaurant, dentist, or park to protest my business decisions.

The size of the organization matters. It's much easier to completely shutdown "Dave's Coffee Shop" after they find out Dave supports the KKK. But to seriously impact a multi-billion dollar company with millions of users would require a large coordinated effort....which is unlikely to occur. So as we've seen in the past, status quo will be maintained.

>You're disturbing the enjoyment of those places for other people who might have nothing to do with my decisions. I suppose spouses, children and even extended family should have to endure this as well?

If we want results, we must exploit people's weaknesses. You want it to stop? Stop the decisions people are unhappy with. No is forcing these executives to work. Don't like what you're being subjected, and you don't have the power to change it? Then quit!

It's short-sighted because breaking of mos maiorum for YOUR immediate political gains is how you legitimize the actions of the psychopaths who will break it further for THEIR gains 10 years down the line.

Eventually this process gets you to the Saturninuses of your world and the streets run with blood. You, who did not appreciate history, has just repeated it.

Depends. Do the ramifications of your business values follow me around to a restaurant, dentist, or park? Do they affect my family? If yes then yeah, people should be able to ensure the ramifications of them follow you there too.

My point is that everyone else, even people who aren't related to me, are now paying the price too.

Take the park example. A group is protesting against my business decisions, so they follow me to the park where I run at 6 every evening. All the other park patrons now have to endure with your protest even though my business has nothing to do with my run at this park. Or the patrons at a restaurant. Or at a sports/concert venue.

You might be protesting me to change my business decision, but other patrons are the collateral damage caught in the cross fire. You might be suffering for what I have done. Why do these other people who are away from my place of work have to as well?

>My point is that everyone else, even people who aren't related to me, are now paying the price too.

Right, but when people picket outside of a building or march down the street in protest....are bystanders there not suffering the same fate? Why is that not acceptable only when it's directed at a person? Do you think picketing outside of a large corporate building has much effect other than an attempt to raise awareness to others?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com