this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
288 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
58937 readers
3433 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
how incredibly fucking dishonest. profit motive is more than enough incentive for them to continue to do what they've already been doing for close to two decades.
"don't boycott exceptionally shitty companies or you're responsible when they just get worse" is possibly the worst take i've seen so far on lemmy.
That would sure be a bad take. Let me know when somebody makes it.
In the meantime I continue to argue that if you boycott people on the basis of their reputation without reversing that stance when they reverse their behavior then you're not "boycotting" anything, you're just removing yourself from the pool of possible customers altogether.
My issue isn't with the notion of boycotting companies, my issue is with the moving of goalposts when the companies do cave to the pressure just to extend the online ragefest. I get that it'd be easier to argue with the imaginary opponent in your head, but if you want to argue with me instead I'd appreciate addressing the actual issue.
They haven't reversed any behavior.
There is no circumstance that justifies having any account with anything Facebook owns, and stealing other company's names to try to trick people into thinking they're a different company doesn't change that.
Well, thanks for passing judgement on... let me check here... two billion people, as it turns out.
They have, in fact, reversed the policy that required linking your Quest account to a live Facebook account, though. That is a fact, perceived moral failings of a significant chunk of humanity or not.
Okay, but what does any of that have to do with Meta?
Dude, Meta has been and continues to be fucking terrible. If you don't understand why then i guess you've been living in your closet in a VR headset for the last two decades.
No, I understand the ways in which Meta is terrible.
I also understand the ways in which they're not because I'm an adult who is capable of holding semi-complex concepts in my mind.
Meta sucks, their role in social media has been a massive net negative for society and they are at best in denial about that, and at worst a deliberate bad actor.
But they're also a huge corporation, so if their dumb chat app is the standard for communication or their VR headsets are great and dirt cheap I will interact with them, just like I interact with Apple, Microsoft, Netflix and a bunch of other corporations I fundamentally disagree with on key issues.
I hate this notion that money is support. It is not. That is a stupid ass ultracapitalist fallacy to make people feel good for ineffectually buying one brand of cereal over another. I don't take a political stance on Meta by not buying their cheap stuff, I do so by supporting political actors who are willing to break apart oligopolistic media companies and regulate their role in society.
Lol, that's not a "notion" at all, it's reality.
Even with the case of them providing a cheap headset, they're betting (and they're often correct, and always correct in aggregate) that you will make it up to them in other ways (e.g. your data, software purchases, etc.).
Well... yeah. They didn't invent that scheme, that's been how most gaming systems are deployed since the Sega of the 90s at least.
And yes, it's a "notion" that is extremely anglocentric and intrinsically capitalist. It assumes that money is self-expression and speech and puts the onus of holding corporations accountable on individual consumers as opposed to regulators. It's half a step away from "ban plastic straws" in the list of ineffectual guilt dispersal schemes meant to avoid addressing any real issues.
Hate to break it to you, but corporations behaving semi-functionally as opposed to destroying everything they touch is not down to your brave refusal to purchase superfluous consumer products for your own entertainment. You're no superhero for not buying a thing you don't need anyway. It's governments that are supposed to have the power to hold them to account, not some magic hand bullcrap where the forces of the free market tend to a morally superior outcome. Can't believe this is so widespread on supposedly leftie circles.
And you're no superhero for writing several thousands of words on lemmy about how we should make completely optional purchases of products from companies we hate and that make us angry.
You're just a corporate apologist.