this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2025
499 points (97.0% liked)
196
5578 readers
1147 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The two are not mutually exclusive. For-profit corporations react to, well, changes in profit. It's not about the influence 'trickling down', it's about punishing bad behavior on the part of corporations in the only way that they actually understand - something which other corporations, desperate to please their shareholders, take note of.
Boycotts, performed by a sufficient percentage of the consumer base, do what they are intended to do - adjust corporate behavior. Nothing deeper - but far from pointless. And considering how fucking difficult it is to pass regulations, and how even with a friendly legislature such things take considerable amounts of time and must avoid violating corporate 'rights', boycotts are not a tool to be discarded out-of-hand.
As long as for-profit corporations exist - and they appear to be well-established to continue to do so for the near-future - we must deal with them as they are, not as we wish them to be (ie well-regulated or gone).
It's not the only strategy, but pretending that corporations don't affect society, or that consumers don't affect corporate behavior, is foolishness. Corporations, as a class of entities, vacuum up most wealth in our society, but individual corporations still rely on relatively narrow consumer bases with small individual consumer purchasing power - a chip company that suddenly loses 20% of its sales for a year is in deep shit - with the shareholders if nothing else, and that's what corporations care about. For that matter, one of the few advantages of our ultra-fucked capitalist society in the states is that there are plenty of meaningless choices - there are half a dozen different brands of fucking cereal. It's not about having 'more' or 'less' dollars to vote with - allocating those dollars differently still can send a message - assuming the boycott is widespread and narrowly targeted.
On top of that, this is about a video game, an extraneous expense to begin with.
Too many people have gotten so accustomed to "deal[ing] with them as they are" that they've lost sight of the real problem entirely.
Look man, "Abolish for-profit corporations, and all that implies" has significant support on here, but not so much in meatspace America. Most of us are trying to play the cards we have with the players we have.
They haven't 'lost sight' of the real problem, they disagree that there is a problem to begin with. And we, as leftists, have to work against that being the dominant view. But that's groundwork, and boycotts are action for more immediate purposes. Two entirely different undertakings.
Still weird that you're white-knighting for Sony, though.
Weird that you're on here arguing with people instead of changing the laws. If they're not doing enough, then what the fuck are you doing?