Vanguard, BlackRock, The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, Twitter/X, any company owned by Elon Musk, pretty much every Big Tech company, Disney, almost any media company, as well as every major bank.
Why Vanguard? They primarily offer passive index fund investments at very low costs and are owned by people that have invested in any of their mutual funds. Before Vanguard, the average investor would get screwed by financial advisors who would skim a large portion of investments.
Yeah, my guess is OP is mad they they are the major shareholders of a bunch of awful companies. But when you’re the largest index fund and retirement investment provider in the world you end up owning most of everything.
Autism Speaks. It has a pro-eugenics mindset, so you’d think everyone would be boycotting it, right? Nope, in fact it’s partnered with the Jim Henson company.
It’s founded and ran by two boomers who have an autistic grandson and were very very upset he had autism. That’s the generation that would actively try to avoid diagnosis and help because they thought the label was worse than the disease, preventing an entire generation from getting assistance.
So its less about empowering people with autism, and more fearmongering how bad it is and that someone with autism shouldn’t have any agency or choice in their lives.
I didn’t dig very deep, but yeah, I could see how that organization does a bunch of problematic shit
Stands for One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison, not officially but I like to think it is. It’s a corporation built around a database engine.
They have a well deserved terrible reputation based on their commercial practices, including but not exhaustive, shipping full fledged software with functionality locked behind paywalls, buying and demolishing established open source companies/projects, suing the shit out of their customers for license violation (see above), price gouging their customers who often have no other choice than to run their products.
The engine itself is nice and reliable but the business practices of Oracle drives a lot of companies to settle for the competition, at least, those who can afford to leave.
Oracle hires more lawyers than they do developers then they do things like “oh? You’re using this product in the cloud with the license you purchased? But you didn’t purchase the cloud license”
They also buy technology and proceed to violate whatever license it has, like ZFS.
Name a single boycott that ever managed to take down an international corporation that didn’t end up making them more famous then they where before that. Being “boycotted” is even a marketing tool companies like nike have used before.
Did you think this through or did you just want to be contrarian for no actual reason?
I think what you’re getting at is that the publicity generated by flashy boycott activism only generates free advertising for the companies. Which it certainly can! But that’s also dependent on what is being boycotted and the social and political beliefs behind it. If one group boycotts a product because the company is homophobic, another group buys more of that product because they agree with the company. That sort of thing.
But it isn’t as two dimensional as “boycotting has the opposite effect”. Here are some examples of effective boycotting. Though you did get me interested in how effective boycotting really is, but I couldn’t find any efficacy studies that weren’t behind a paywall…
We both know that you actually don’t think it’s that simple. You just wanted to be contrarian.
I’m actually so correct in what I said that getting targeted with hate campaigns is something companies try to do. As I told another one of you NPCs before, Nike did that exact thing. They intentionally did something that upset a target demographic, those people burned nike products and tried to “boycott” them and it ended up making their sales go up because everyone was talking about them now.
This is such a well known thing that I’m surprised you people got mad at me for saying it. Redditors will get mad at everything for no reason I guess.
They intentionally did something that upset a target demographic, those people burned nike products and tried to “boycott” them and it ended up making their sales go up because everyone was talking about them now.
I bet if you were specific, it was something about supporting a progressive cause that most people support and rightwingers got mad and “protested” by buying Nike products to destroy…
Just because rightwing extremists are the minority and don’t understand how boycotts work, doesn’t mean boycotts don’t work.
Add comment