Hacker News Reader

Comment by georgewfraser | Hacker News Reader

This is a mostly-fake, media phenomenon. Most CEOs and most companies do not engage in political activism, we just tend not to notice people not speaking out. What's described in this article is something the authors (and most journalists) want to happen, but it isn't actually happening at most companies.

View on HN

this is nonsense. Most CEOs (and wealthy people in general) and medium-to-large companies engage in a lot of political activism, and always have. Lobbyists don't pay themselves, after all. We just don't call it 'activism' when it's in support of corporate interests (even when those corporate interests have social impacts) for some silly reason.

It only gets called activism when it scares someone with power.

Exactly. It's somehow not activism when corporations and executives lobby for lower taxes or less regulation, it's only activism when a company or executive say that the police should kill fewer black people or that trans people deserve basic human rights.

Trans people do have all human rights - your gender expression does not change your access to your other rights.

So anyone saying 'trans people deserve basic human rights' is actually saying something else, like about access to women's spaces. That disingenuous advocacy of one thing to get another thing through under the table is more activist than principled. In a company or otherwise.

I think in this context OP meant _social_ justice activism.

Yes, in other words one kind of activism is considered worse (or less 'neutral') than others.

Do you think that lobbying for and getting massive tax exemptions has no social impacts? SCV is basically one of the richest places on the planet, with likely trillions of dollars effectively flowing through it, and it can't even manage to keep enough shelter for homeless people going or have a functioning public transit system.

That's not neutral, but we pretend it is. It is social, but we pretend it's not.

Your comment is an excellent illustration of how everything is "political" in some fashion, some things are just inconvenient or uncomfortable to think about in that way.

>Yes, in other words one kind of activism is considered worse (or less 'neutral') than others.

You could also say that one kind of activism is considered more PR friendly. It's obvious that a company lobbying for lower taxes is directly beneficial only to that company, and that's why we don't hear about it. The problem I think a lot of people (myself included) have with the more obviously "social" corporate activism that the article describes is that it feels extremely fake, and corporations are only doing it to make themselves look good.

In 2017, Coca Cola put out a commercial[1] that depicted a heated kerfuffle between protesters and police. Then a celebrity walked onto the scene and handed some people a nice cold can of coke, and everyone started smiling and relaxing like the problems that brought them to that point were solved. Everyone rightly hated it, and it was pulled. How is anyone supposed to believe that that any of their activism isn't just a form of PR? When I see CEOs of gigantic corporations (including coke) go on TV to talk about how some new legislation is going to hurt the little guy, I can only roll my eyes and wonder how anyone in their right mind can believe them, or why they are being given a chance to speak on the matter in the first place.

I believe the most beneficial thing a company as big as coke could do to help anything would be to pay their fair share of taxes, and that any form of activism they engage in is a distraction from the fact that they will never willingly do that.

[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/pepsi-ad-kendall-jenner-...

edit: s/coke/pepsi/g, which I will leave because just lol what a dumb mistake

> It only gets called activism when it scares someone with power.

My impression is that calling something activism is a seal of approval by the journalist.

Could be. But the motives remain the same, it's just a feedback cycle where whether you're for or against you call it activism.

It's pretty clear from many of the comments in this HN post's replies that many people find this particular form of political activity a threat in ways that they don't find more status-quo enforcing forms to be.

Yup exactly this, such a common headline from modern journalists. "Pressure is building (by us) for thing that society (us) wants to happen."

Delta? MLB? Coca-Cola? Over the Georgia legislature's attempt to disenfranchise voters? This is fake? I don't believe so.

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2021/4/5/22368566/corporate-re...

Larry Fink's letters to CEOs (Blackrock has $9 trillion AUM)

https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1qqdhmzgrwbb3... ("When Fink calls for transparency on issues like climate change, companies with significant BlackRock ownership adjust their disclosures.")

"As society became politically polarized, companies became more activist. With a 24-hour news cycle and social media fanning polarization, it’s more problematic for organizations and their CEOs to remain neutral. Consider what’s happened in the past decade: Hobby Lobby — a chain of craft stores that challenged a federal mandate stating companies pay for insurance coverage for contraception — took their case all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Nike featured the controversial athlete and social crusader, Colin Kaepernick, in an ad campaign. Retailers like Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods stopped selling certain weapons in response to tragic mass shootings nationwide."

https://hbr.org/2020/02/how-do-consumers-feel-when-companies...

Excuse me while I roll my eyes so hard they go into orbit

MLB: "These voter ID laws are terrible, let's move the game to a state with stricter voter ID laws, that'll show 'em!"

Ok.

99% of Colorado voters voted by mail with record turnout. There is no voter id when you vote by mail, only when you register. Moreover, Colorado accepts significantly more forms of ID for registration than does Georgia.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/colorado-vote...

https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/vote/acceptableFo...

https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/georgia_voter_identif...

"So, while it's true that Colorado has fewer days for in-person voting, it also has far less demand for in-person voting. Voters rarely encounter lines here. And the ultimate result of Colorado's system is relatively high turnout."

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984857562/fact-check-how-colo...

Colorado had just shy of 87% voter turnout. Without getting into specifics that points to a state which is pretty easy to vote in (mail in ballots, easy access to ballot boxes, same day registation, etc.)

By contrast Georgia has historic minority voter turnout and voted in 2 democratic senators and voted for the democratic presidential candidate. In response the republican state government passed a law restricting voting under the claims of voter fraud despite there being no evidence showing such fraud.

Sure, and Remind me what the Colorado demographics, and Voter ID laws are vs Georgia again. Not turn out, voter ID laws.

OK.

https://www.denverpost.com/2021/04/06/colorado-georgia-votin...

Colorado voters can use a wide range of identifying documents, from standard photo ID to a bank or utility statement. If you have no ID or any of the other documents, Coloradans able to cast a provisional ballot, and counties must attempt to verify those individuals’ identities.

Couldn't the same be said of most people? Aside from being noisy on social media, most people don't do anything.

This is how the narrative moves. A few CEOs take a stand, the media jumps on it, people read it, other CEOs see people reading it, jump on board, and that's how it flourishes. The media didn't create it, it only amplified it. The media only ever amplifies what it finds. It doesn't manufacture it.

>>The media only ever amplifies what it finds

You mean likes: the media only ever amplifies what it likes and wants more of. There's like 1m people at the pro-life march each year that get zero press.

That is entirely different from the fabrication of stories. There is a reason CNN is different from say the Enquirer.

As for the pro-life marches, its telling the something like Fox News doesn't even cover them huh there bub? Your bias showing through?

Tens of Thousands Pack March for Life 2020 Event with Trump

Tens of Thousands. This was well before quarantine and for the first and only time with a president in attendance.

https://heavy.com/news/2020/01/trump-march-for-life-2020-cro...

edit: on video it looks like 100k, but not 1m.

Great, what else you got? A majority of Americans support abortion. Only a minority yell loudly about it.

It's not strictly political activism though. It's companies that are making voluntary commitments to thinks like diversity and inclusion, managing their ecological footprint, supply chain transparency. And this is all happening due to pressure from employees/customers/shareholders. In some cases it's CEOs having a genuine concern for the country, but more often they are being pushed out of economic necessity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com