Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Might be a good day to cancel some of those unwanted services too.
According to recent reports, several streaming companies, including Amazon, Disney, Meta (Facebook), and Paramount have been identified as rolling back some of their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, citing pressure from conservative groups and a changing political climate as reasons for these changes.
I have seen several threads now on this subject here in Lemmy recently and the number of people who are against it is disappointing. Years ago my wife and I decided to let our Prime membership lapse and to no longer buy from Amazon. I mentioned this on Reddit and the responses were similar to what I'm seeing on here now in regards to this boycott.
"That's not going to do anything"
However, in the past seven years, instead of buying from Amazon, we have sought out small businesses and put money into local businesses when we can. That's money Amazon does not have from us. Think about what the average American spends on goods from Amazon each year. If more people did this instead of naysaying then the economic impact would be much better.
So to those of you wanting to participate tomorrow, I applaud you. Be the change you want to see in the world. Money is all these greedy parasites know and if we can collectively stand up, one small step at a time, then the impact will be huge.
To the naysayers, either you're a bot or have nothing to contribute to the cause because I don't see any organizing from you. Find a positive way to contribute or shut the fuck up.
Changing your spending patterns for 7 years is completely different from one day of attempted boycotting. The reality is, people already aren't spending money. Just a few days ago it was reported that the top 10% of earners are currently responsible for half of all spending. "Spending" isn't leverage we have.
I would be more supportive of a movement to cut all subscriptions, and stop spending on anything beyond necessities until things are stable again. But anyone who's worked retail during these months knows that bad days are just business as usual.
Just a few days ago it was reported that the top 10% of earners are currently responsible for half of all spending. "Spending" isn't leverage we have.
In a world where "line must go up infinitely", the idea of people coming together to make that line go another direction is power. But sitting behind a keyboard and telling people to continue being small and helpless is not what we continue to need from the community.
There are a lot of people who have never participated in something like this, but these moments are our chance to get people involved. I love that you have an idea for subscriptions and only buying necessities. I need you to say "Yes, this is a good start, and now let's take the next step together. I have some ideas."
Every dollar we give to these people is another dollar that is used against us. I'm not ok with that. Inequality is at an all time high and only getting worse.
Lastly, you'll have to forgive me for taking QZ, a website owned by a Private Equity Firm, with a grain of salt. "Rich people are now powering the economy" reads like rich people propaganda.
But sitting behind a keyboard and telling people to continue being small and helpless is not what we continue to need from the community.
Uncalled for, don't be like that, you know that's not what I said at all.
but these moments are our chance to get people involved
So you agree the expected outcome of this particular venture is to not have any tangible impact. Are you concerned at all about people seeing that it had no impact, and as a result feeling deterred from future involvement?
taking QZ, a website owned by a Private Equity Firm, with a grain of salt
I picked the first article in my search that wasn't paywalled, but they're all citing a study by Moody's Analytics, owned by Berkshire Hathaway. Take it for what it's worth.
"Rich people are now powering the economy" reads like rich people propaganda.
I agree wording the headline that way is misleading, because it's more accurate to say "rich people are creating the demand, poor people are doing all the work to fulfill the supply, but of course capitalism means the rich also get all those proceeds".
But the entire concept of Wealth Inequality directly implies that one small group will have all the money to spend, and another group will not. I don't see that as "pro rich people" I think most everyone would read it as "it's a problem that there are fewer customers in our economy". Even if you're the embarrassed-millionaire-type, you have to concede that fewer people out spending money translates to fewer opportunities for you to make your millions.
I just think this sounds like an idea that some privileged person came up with, assuming that everyone is out there being irresponsible with their money every day. But we're in a spot where not only are people not spending money, they're putting necessities on credit. I feel like that public debt-to-GDP ratio of the is the bigger threat to businesses. That's going to come crashing down on them, especially small businesses.
But a random bad day in Feb is also known to a retail business as a "Friday". People don't spend money during these months, even when the economy is good. Now if we did this any time between Thanksgiving and Christmas? THAT could send a message.
Uncalled for, don't be like that, you know that's not what I said at all
I should not have directed that to you. Your response was not naysaying in the way I pointed out in my post. I'm frustrated but that's not a reason to be rude. I'm truly sorry.
So you agree the expected outcome of this particular venture is to not have any tangible impact. Are you concerned at all about people seeing that it had no impact, and as a result feeling deterred from future involvement?
I'm not sure I implied that but it's not what I think about today's protest. I believe people coming together is powerful. It's about sending a message.
Are you concerned at all about people seeing that it had no impact, and as a result feeling deterred from future involvement?
At the end of the day, I'm more concerned with people not doing anything.
Over the past 20 years, I've read so many similar sentiments on social media that "X won't work." At this point, I just want people to try. I desperately want people to try. I want people to get involved. My biggest concern is that people won't do anything because no one is coming up with the idea.
I just think this sounds like an idea that some privileged person came up with, assuming that everyone is out there being irresponsible with their money every day.
I see where you're coming from with this point. I think there are a spectrum of people from various economic backgrounds that aren't super rich that can contribute. All I'm saying is that if someone acts today it could be their first step towards long term changes on their part. I wasn't well off when I made the change seven years ago but I'm glad I didn't give into the notion that my change wasn't meaningful.
Again, I'm sorry for the harsh rhetoric towards you with my last response.
I get wanting to see people do *anything *. I can't disagree at all with that.
Something I hadn't shared is that, the way I found out about this "blackout" was when my partner came home and said "make sure to get any supplies you need tonight, we're doing an economic blackout tomorrow in protest", to which my first response was "if we're just buying everything today that we would buy tomorrow, what is the point?"
Meanwhile, today during the blackout, i assume everyone is getting on social platforms owned by these corporations to conspire about how they're not going to patronize their services today...
It just wreaks of slacktivism to me, which could be seen as either "better than nothing" or "a psyop deliberately orchestrated BY the corporations to make social groups feel like they're doing something, when they're really just spinning their wheels/tiring themselves out".
IMHO if we're going to take group action, it's vital that the desired outcome is clearly defined, and we don't stop until that is accomplished. The strategy of "let's shoot our shot, then go back to our lives, and cross our fingers that there's some latent impact" should be widely regarded as what not to do. That's why unions have strikes the way they do. You can picket all day, but in order to force change you have to draw a line and all agree to cross it (or not cross it, whatever the metaphor calls for, idk).
I appreciate the sane, well thought out responses here from you. I spent yesterday evening reflecting on your points and, ultimately, I can say your ideas on how we should organize is more than likely the way we should be approaching this.
Are you aware of any groups trying to do what you've suggested with subscriptions and/or Black Friday? I want to be more involved in some capacity but I'm not seeing anyone organizing like this.
Yeah, I don't know of any. I don't spend any time on the larger social media sites, so if it went mega viral I would probably be the last to find out hah.
But...I feel like we're fast approaching (or past) the point where people will just start doing it out of necessity. It'll happen, but less in the form of a movement, and more in the form of a Great Depression 2.0 😕.
My own take is that if you have a boycott, to have political impact, it needs to have concrete goals and agreed-upon-in-advance, well-defined termination conditions.
Without that, you're flailing around angrily. Doesn't actually do anything, since it's not as if any one party can do anything you want that has an effect in response.
I'd also add that the broader a boycott, the harder it is to do, and the more-diffuse the effect. If you don't buy anything, you're affecting all sorts of people. Many of those have no impact on your particular concerns.
If I were going to participate in a boycott:
It would not have termination condition defined by time, but in achieving political goals. Defining a termination in time specifically says "I'm not going to have an effect after this point", which encourages ignoring the boycott, and and not having concrete political goals says "nothing you do for me is going to affect what I do anyway", which also encourages ignoring the boycott.
Those goals would be achievable, concrete, and announced in advance.
It would identify specific parties who have the authority to produce the change I want and target those.
It would be limited in scope to try to affect specifically the parties who I want to act differently. Anything else, and you're expending will-to-act on impacting others and also antagonizing people whose actions you don't care about.
EDIT: What would I consider to be a more-effective boycott? The article says that one thing that people are upset about is Target rolling back DEI policy. Okay. Say "we will boycott Target until it reinstates the DEI policy that existed prior to Date X" (or, hell, adopts some other policy, whatever). That is something that Target management can very clearly institute. It has concrete political goals. It does not announce in advance that it is going to terminate at a given time. It is not impacting other parties who have nothing to do with whatever someone is upset about. The impact of the boycott is focused on the party in question.
Then repeat that with other parties if you have other things you want to accomplish.
That's also sustainable. It is very likely that you can keep doing that for a sustained period of time, because Target probably doesn't have a monopoly as a provider of household goods. There, a boycotter actually has leverage. Trying to boycott...everything...is trying to start a fight with everyone. You can get something from a different store than Target for a lot longer than you can not get anything at all.
I think that just saying "I'm going to not buy anything from anyone for a day because I'm unhappy about various undefined things" is probably not going to accomplish a lot other than maybe letting people work off a little steam. I don't expect that it will result in change.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Every vote counts.
There is value in just using something like this to break spending habits of the population.
A lot of people may find that a portion of their spending wasn’t that necessary after all, and will stop beyond the boycott. The businesses will need to improve services or lower prices to win customers back.
At least, that’s what I hope this achieves. The organizers might have varying goals.
Clean out your cupboards for the next week or two. You know you've got that stuff in the back of the freezer you could still eat. Buy used items when you can. Stop buying useless shit you don't need. Cancel those subscriptions and pitate shit. Pay cash so payment companies don't get a petcentage. Shop local.
Maybe we can make a list of non-shitass companies. Newegg has an online marketplace for more than electronics for example. Aldi isn't a bad company I dont think, etc.
Newegg would be on the list of shit ass companies unfortunately
Here's some other ones at https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/Main_Page A new site by Louis rossman trying to document shitty companies and their workings.
Very glad I accidentally left the second half of my personal pizza in the fridge at work. That’ll be my lunch tomorrow.
Well I ordered something from Ukraine toda but I think this is still in the spirit of this action.
WTF do people think a one day boycott going to accomplish?
A hell of a lot more than nothing. They're starting with one day, and then increasing the number of days in subsequent boycotts
I mean the point is, it's the general flaw of like say when people tried to organize "don't buy gas on X day", doesn't actually hit them because they go by the quarter... and it isn't like they don't know you'll make up for it within the week.
lets go crazy lets do a boycott for a month... dont' spend any money for a month... what will happen? Well logically to do that you'll need to spend a boatload of money before the month.. and a ton after.
IMO an economic boycot would need to be like "no luxuries march". where we collectively agree not to pay for anything but food, rent gas etc.... Rescheduling necessities inconveniences us, not them... because they know at the end of the day we're going to buy them, and they don't care what day it falls on.
I agree with you. Fortunately, most big corporations are so shortsighted and focused on making numbers go up, it wouldn't take more than a month to a quarter to really send a message.
It's much more palatable for the general public to boycott a handful of companies in the long term, particularly those that kowtow to the current administration by getting rid of DEI https://apnews.com/article/dei-diversity-equity-inclusion-lawsuits-f2f5e9136ac95d9466ee91c97c7e3be1
We consider it a pulse check on our representatives.
I guess a little more than nothing is infinitely more than nothing; that’s just marketing though. If you’re just deferring purchases or making purchases in advance it’s not actually having an impact.
I personally feel sustained targeted boycotting is going to be more impactful than a general consumption strike.
If it accomplishes nothing people will get discouraged, which is actually less than nothing.
A hell of a lot more than nothing.
I really don't think it will.
Demonstration of organization. If they see a one day dip in the numbers--even if it's deferred spending to the very next day--then it implies there's a large number of people who are pissed off and ready to be organized.
Bottom up organizing has to start somewhere.
These companies do their financials quarterly. Even if this goes as planned nobody would even notice if they looked for it.
It's a shot across the bow. It gets people organizing and coordinating. Once people start working together on something, you can then direct that and focus long term on a boycott of, say Amazon.
Thank you. Some people don't understand that big change like this would take time to coordinate. This is a step to larger goal.
Wtf do people think doing nothing is going to accomplish?
Yes - nothing is the only alternative to this 🙄
Literally, only .1% of the population will participate.
And? You gotta start somewhere.
Meh. I wasn't going to shop anyway but this won't accomplish much. Granted, I don't even think regular protests will do the trick. Do make long term strives towards weaning off the bad stuff, though. It won't make a statement, but the only statements that'll be taken seriously are the ones that land you in a NYC courthouse wearing an unnecessary bullet proof vest.