Patagonia joins growing list of companies boycotting Facebook ads(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Patagonia joins growing list of companies boycotting Facebook ads
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/22/patagonia-joins-growing-list-of-companies-boycotting-facebook-ads.html
233 comments
But we don't know how much of their revenue is driven by FB ads. Its possible that its not that significant.
revenue gain from publicity + brand strengthening > loss of revenue
Their future customers aren't red state ppl.
Its possible that they are using this formula. I don't get all the blind praise and "respect" from people who have no idea what equations were used to get to this decision.
They should outline what sacrifices they are making otherwise i take this as a 'publicity stunt' . This stunt is particularly absurd given they have no problem making stuff in china.
Ppl blindly supporting this are politically motivated, obviously.
https://www.patagonia.com/static/on/demandware.static/-/Libr...
> Far more of our products are made by those Chinese suppliers than they are by the U.S factories because of their expertise and price
> We’ve made the choice not to disengage from countries on the basis of their policies.
Hilarious.
Yet another hypocritical company jumping on the bandwagon.
revenue gain from publicity + brand strengthening > loss of revenue
Their future customers aren't red state ppl.
Its possible that they are using this formula. I don't get all the blind praise and "respect" from people who have no idea what equations were used to get to this decision.
They should outline what sacrifices they are making otherwise i take this as a 'publicity stunt' . This stunt is particularly absurd given they have no problem making stuff in china.
Ppl blindly supporting this are politically motivated, obviously.
https://www.patagonia.com/static/on/demandware.static/-/Libr...
> Far more of our products are made by those Chinese suppliers than they are by the U.S factories because of their expertise and price
> We’ve made the choice not to disengage from countries on the basis of their policies.
Hilarious.
Yet another hypocritical company jumping on the bandwagon.
You could say that about any company doing good. "But we don't know how much of this is politically motivated". For example, they run ad campaigns for voting/saving public lands.
Yes, they are spending their profits on it. And people like companies that do good things, so i'm sure it earns them some trust & brand loyalty. Does that mean it's ill intended?
Yes, they are spending their profits on it. And people like companies that do good things, so i'm sure it earns them some trust & brand loyalty. Does that mean it's ill intended?
> they run ad campaigns for voting/saving public lands.
This is part of their brand building. Ppl buying their overpriced jackets are not just buying a jacket they are buying "good feelings". They cannot justify the price just on just the quality of the jacket, they have to bundle intangible in their price. Outdoorsy ppl want they outdoors saved, its a no brainer for outdoor company to support this.
Their customers dont' give a shit about muslims in Chinese camps so they don't "run ad campaigns for saving muslims".
Why are you attributing some noble intentions behind basic 101 business marketing. Its clearly not the case per what i said above.
> Does that mean it's ill intended?
yes. I call BS.
This is part of their brand building. Ppl buying their overpriced jackets are not just buying a jacket they are buying "good feelings". They cannot justify the price just on just the quality of the jacket, they have to bundle intangible in their price. Outdoorsy ppl want they outdoors saved, its a no brainer for outdoor company to support this.
Their customers dont' give a shit about muslims in Chinese camps so they don't "run ad campaigns for saving muslims".
Why are you attributing some noble intentions behind basic 101 business marketing. Its clearly not the case per what i said above.
> Does that mean it's ill intended?
yes. I call BS.
I feel like its a weird stance to say that Patagonia jackets are overpriced and only justify their value due to their political opinions. Like they're some of the best $/quality on the market and they have great resale value. They turned up on my shortlist before I knew anything about their environmental/political stances.
I think people en masse are more price sensitive and lifestyle oriented than they are activist-by-proxy.
I think people en masse are more price sensitive and lifestyle oriented than they are activist-by-proxy.
Agreed.
Patagonia also has an Ironclad Guarantee [1] - "If you are not satisfied with one of our products at the time you receive it, or if one of our products does not perform to your satisfaction, return it to the store you bought it from or to Patagonia for a repair, replacement or refund."
They stand by their products. You can even return more than a year later and get credit. Some buy stuff on resale and get it repaired or exchanged for new for cheap.
[1] https://help.patagonia.com/s/article/Ironclad-Guarantee
Patagonia also has an Ironclad Guarantee [1] - "If you are not satisfied with one of our products at the time you receive it, or if one of our products does not perform to your satisfaction, return it to the store you bought it from or to Patagonia for a repair, replacement or refund."
They stand by their products. You can even return more than a year later and get credit. Some buy stuff on resale and get it repaired or exchanged for new for cheap.
[1] https://help.patagonia.com/s/article/Ironclad-Guarantee
> Their customers dont' give a shit about muslims in Chinese camps so they don't "run ad campaigns for saving muslims".
By this logic no one should work for or do business with American companies for all our atrocities in the middle east. There are a million issues in the world. You have to pick one or two if you want to have any kind of messaging other than "shits fucked up yo"
By this logic no one should work for or do business with American companies for all our atrocities in the middle east. There are a million issues in the world. You have to pick one or two if you want to have any kind of messaging other than "shits fucked up yo"
> By this logic no one should
I am not saying ppl should or shouldn't do certain thing. Its up to them.
I am contradicting "petagonia is a noble company for boycotting FB". They clearly aren't because they are supporting far worse things.
I am not saying ppl should or shouldn't do certain thing. Its up to them.
I am contradicting "petagonia is a noble company for boycotting FB". They clearly aren't because they are supporting far worse things.
Wasn't it the founder that got the Three Cups of Tea guy to build schools for Muslims in Baltistan precisely because he thought the customers didn't give a shit?
[deleted]
Why are you ascribing basic 101 business marketing to one of the most successful brands on the planet?
It's noble but somehow not as noble as it would be if the company actually suffered harm from it. Otherwise it's just a "strategy credit": https://stratechery.com/2013/strategy-credit/
Possibly. But this kind of thinking is pretty universally used against any person or organization trying to do something good.
You can live a life completely devoid of ethical behavior beyond following the law, and nobody will say a word or think anything of it. But as soon as you put any effort to being extra ethical, expect endless criticism. Dave Eggars, in one of my favorite books "You Shall Know Our Velocity", has a quote that sums this up nicely: "The inactive must justify their sloth by picking nits with those making an attempt".
You can live a life completely devoid of ethical behavior beyond following the law, and nobody will say a word or think anything of it. But as soon as you put any effort to being extra ethical, expect endless criticism. Dave Eggars, in one of my favorite books "You Shall Know Our Velocity", has a quote that sums this up nicely: "The inactive must justify their sloth by picking nits with those making an attempt".
That is an amazing quote, but:
You could also put extra effort into being ethical, and just not tell anyone or publicize it in any way associated with increasing mind share.
The only problem is that it then is difficult to "lead by example" but I'm sure there are relatively quiet ways of accomplishing that, too.
You could also put extra effort into being ethical, and just not tell anyone or publicize it in any way associated with increasing mind share.
The only problem is that it then is difficult to "lead by example" but I'm sure there are relatively quiet ways of accomplishing that, too.
lol. So you were convinced that coca cola was really striving to get rid plastic packaging by 2015?
A good company isn't one that sacrifices profits for good causes, since such a company will go out of business eventually as more profitable companies outcompete it.
A good company is one that aligns its own profitability with good causes. Part of that includes understanding how to gain publicity for being a genuinely responsible company.
A good company is one that aligns its own profitability with good causes. Part of that includes understanding how to gain publicity for being a genuinely responsible company.
I think you might be overestimating the thought processes behind this, and underestimating the lack of thought among many people who buy their clothing. They're known as "Fratagonia" at colleges and universities nationwide because of their popularity as status symbol clothing with certain groups. I'll leave which groups for you to guess.
Anyways, Patagonia is a pretty small company despite their nationwide reputation, and they've always put values first and hoped/assumed things would work out, their founder has written about this himself. If your business model isn't a cost cutting / race to the bottom one, then a lot of traditional logic about how businesses are run can end up never implemented in the first place.
Anyways, Patagonia is a pretty small company despite their nationwide reputation, and they've always put values first and hoped/assumed things would work out, their founder has written about this himself. If your business model isn't a cost cutting / race to the bottom one, then a lot of traditional logic about how businesses are run can end up never implemented in the first place.
Hmm. I'd always heard "patagucci".
Around here, Canada Goose is the eerily ubiquitous spendy brand on campus.
Around here, Canada Goose is the eerily ubiquitous spendy brand on campus.
That’s a lose lose situation. They could be slammed for sacrificing income for their shareholders, or they didn’t lose out therefore it couldn’t have been a genuine act. Especially in this case where iirc the company founders bought up land for one of the biggest national parks in South America, I can believe it’s sincere.
> Especially in this case where iirc the company founders bought up land for one of the biggest national parks in South America, I can believe it’s sincere.
Bill gates has been doing work with his foundation since the 90's. Founders personal passion projects are irrelevant. By your logic founder hates muslims by supporting Chinese regime making his company's stuff there.
They need to show what personal sacrifice they are making or this is purely a marketing move.
Bill gates has been doing work with his foundation since the 90's. Founders personal passion projects are irrelevant. By your logic founder hates muslims by supporting Chinese regime making his company's stuff there.
They need to show what personal sacrifice they are making or this is purely a marketing move.
I already set out why they could be considered bad for the sacrifice.
Various oil, cigarette, opioid and arms dealers have tried to clean up their image by donating, for instance to art galleries. The Getty Wing of the National Gallery, London is because of a donation and a genuine interest in art by Paul Jr. The Sackler family had their gift to the sister National Portrait Gallery turned down, a popular decision. Both have donated to National Gallery, Washington, among others. Sacrificing money is not a good measure. There will be Bible references for this.
Various oil, cigarette, opioid and arms dealers have tried to clean up their image by donating, for instance to art galleries. The Getty Wing of the National Gallery, London is because of a donation and a genuine interest in art by Paul Jr. The Sackler family had their gift to the sister National Portrait Gallery turned down, a popular decision. Both have donated to National Gallery, Washington, among others. Sacrificing money is not a good measure. There will be Bible references for this.
>They need to show what personal sacrifice they are making or this is purely a marketing move.
Like giving away $10 million dollars?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/11/28/patagonia-mo...
You realize that actions can have marketing benefits while still being unequivocally positive right?
Like giving away $10 million dollars?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/11/28/patagonia-mo...
You realize that actions can have marketing benefits while still being unequivocally positive right?
>Their future customers aren't red state ppl.
Red state people don't enjoy fishing, climbing, skiing and hiking? Please.
The rest of your comment wilfully ignores the company structure (A public benefit corp), philosophy, history of transparency, and history of activism. Just one example -
>In June 2018, the company announced that it would donate the $10 million it received from President Trump's 2017 tax cuts to "groups committed to protecting air, land and water and finding solutions to the climate crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia,_Inc.#Activism
>Ppl blindly supporting this are politically motivated, obviously.
Sounds like you're the one making politically motivated attacks not based on evidence.
Please don't bother cherry picking their mis-steps as "proof" that I'm wrong. Looking at the big picture, their track record of trying to make ethical, transparent choices speaks for itself.
Red state people don't enjoy fishing, climbing, skiing and hiking? Please.
The rest of your comment wilfully ignores the company structure (A public benefit corp), philosophy, history of transparency, and history of activism. Just one example -
>In June 2018, the company announced that it would donate the $10 million it received from President Trump's 2017 tax cuts to "groups committed to protecting air, land and water and finding solutions to the climate crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia,_Inc.#Activism
>Ppl blindly supporting this are politically motivated, obviously.
Sounds like you're the one making politically motivated attacks not based on evidence.
Please don't bother cherry picking their mis-steps as "proof" that I'm wrong. Looking at the big picture, their track record of trying to make ethical, transparent choices speaks for itself.
[deleted]
[deleted]
When a company has a history of Doing The Right Thing they earn the benefit of the doubt. It's called "good will".
re: “red staters”, you would be quite surprised how bipartisan the fly fishing community is. And how into it Choiunard and thus Patagonia are.
i know this is a fighting word, but eco/conservation groups are a lot more intersectional and (in the US) bipartisan than you’d potentially expect.
i know this is a fighting word, but eco/conservation groups are a lot more intersectional and (in the US) bipartisan than you’d potentially expect.
Yes! Btw, the founder, Yvon Chouinard, a renowned mountain climber, wrote a great book about the story behind the company which is regarded as the “philosophical manual for the employees of Patagonia”. Awesome read imo.
He did a great podcast episode on How I Built This too: https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/572558864/patagonia-yvon-chou...
Thanks, highly recommended. It's nice to hear Yvon in his own words, always aspiring to do better.
I'm not sure why Patagonia boycotting Facebook ads is even news. Given Facebooks track record i don't know why people use their service or advertise there at all.
I'm not sure why Patagonia boycotting Facebook ads is even news. Given Facebooks track record i don't know why people use their service or advertise there at all.
[deleted]
He’s also done a lot of work on dam removal/riparian ecosystem restoration
*Edit: Let My People Go Surfing is the name of the book.
(Couldn’t edit the original)
(Couldn’t edit the original)
I was told by an ex-employee of Patagonia that they pay under market wages. This person left the headquarters office for better pay. This is some time ago, things may have changed. They make good products and have renowned corporate ethics.
I would personally consider working at Patagonia to be working at a non-profit. Where I take a paycut for the values. See this post for an example as to why they might not be able to pay top dollar: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23601699
If they're making value based decisions, they can't maximize profits like your facebooks or walmarts or amazons. Just a consideration.
Sometimes you take below-market pay in exchange for other benefits.
Still largely made in China. That means more recently than it used to.
There may be quality reasons for this (source: I work in a company that produces clothes).
There are typically two factors that are used to critique clothing production, ethics and quality. Ethically production in China is fairly easy to do well assuming you're not objecting wholesale to giving money to the Chinese economy. Working conditions are normally fine and can be great.
In terms of quality, China is pretty good for a number of types of clothing. I don't know about activewear as we don't produce any, but for many categories at many price points they're basically as good as anywhere else. There are categories where they're not, regardless of how much you pay. I have a feeling that suits might have been one of these but not certain.
For very high end clothing, production in Europe, particularly Italy, is a good sign. For anything else there's no reason why China can't compete on quality for most categories.
There are typically two factors that are used to critique clothing production, ethics and quality. Ethically production in China is fairly easy to do well assuming you're not objecting wholesale to giving money to the Chinese economy. Working conditions are normally fine and can be great.
In terms of quality, China is pretty good for a number of types of clothing. I don't know about activewear as we don't produce any, but for many categories at many price points they're basically as good as anywhere else. There are categories where they're not, regardless of how much you pay. I have a feeling that suits might have been one of these but not certain.
For very high end clothing, production in Europe, particularly Italy, is a good sign. For anything else there's no reason why China can't compete on quality for most categories.
The question is do they hold the same standard for Chinese politics and Chinese corporations? If not, then why the double standard?
>If not, then why the double standard?
China, whether we like it or not, is strong. The West, and particularly its corporations, have shown themselves to be incredibly weak when it comes to kowtowing to what amounts to populism.
So then why bother splitting efforts with fights you know you can't win when you can 100% invest in trouncing those who've shown weakness?
Also bringing up China in particular opens a massive can of worms that nobody is really comfortable with. There's been a bunch of companies we all "know and love" who've shown their support for their protests and the BLM political entity over the course of the last few weeks whose output comes from what is essentially slavery in Asia. Again though, that is a conversation nobody seems to be eager to have.
China, whether we like it or not, is strong. The West, and particularly its corporations, have shown themselves to be incredibly weak when it comes to kowtowing to what amounts to populism.
So then why bother splitting efforts with fights you know you can't win when you can 100% invest in trouncing those who've shown weakness?
Also bringing up China in particular opens a massive can of worms that nobody is really comfortable with. There's been a bunch of companies we all "know and love" who've shown their support for their protests and the BLM political entity over the course of the last few weeks whose output comes from what is essentially slavery in Asia. Again though, that is a conversation nobody seems to be eager to have.
[deleted]
The general industrial/infrastructure landscape in Europe has changed a lot after 2008, the effects of that crisis gave China a chance to reach and establish itself in many places/industries that pre-crisis were out of reach to them for “national security” or whatever reasons.
See [1] for a bad article with a few interesting leads as a way to find out more but basically Chinese capital realized that made in China has a reputation problem and have bought italian brands and manufacturing businesses. I’m not suggesting that is nefarious but I am saying that is worth to learn more.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-sweatshop-insight-i...
See [1] for a bad article with a few interesting leads as a way to find out more but basically Chinese capital realized that made in China has a reputation problem and have bought italian brands and manufacturing businesses. I’m not suggesting that is nefarious but I am saying that is worth to learn more.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-sweatshop-insight-i...
[deleted]
[deleted]
pyuser583(1)
I have more "Made in Vietnam" tags on my Patagonia clothes than "Made in China".
Patagonia has been leading the way on ethical manufacturing for a long time. Easily since the late 1990s. They don't appear to be bargaining for rock-bottom price with their Chinese contractors -- they are asking for higher standards, both labor and environmental. According to their website, they have narrowed the list of contractors they work with so that they can monitor them better.
Also, as their website points out, it's important to not fetishize American clothes manufacturing as such. The American textile industry is much smaller than it once was, due to NAFTA and related agreements.
For a lot more, see: https://www.patagonia.com/stories/patagonia-clothing-made-wh...
Patagonia has been leading the way on ethical manufacturing for a long time. Easily since the late 1990s. They don't appear to be bargaining for rock-bottom price with their Chinese contractors -- they are asking for higher standards, both labor and environmental. According to their website, they have narrowed the list of contractors they work with so that they can monitor them better.
Also, as their website points out, it's important to not fetishize American clothes manufacturing as such. The American textile industry is much smaller than it once was, due to NAFTA and related agreements.
For a lot more, see: https://www.patagonia.com/stories/patagonia-clothing-made-wh...
It should be noted that in addition to this being true, they are also diversely testing other production lines in Vietnam and Sri Lanka. There may be others I am unaware of. This leads to the natural question-- are those countries' factories being managed better than those of China? Are we saying China bad, generally, or are we saying the state of factory workers is bad, wherever they clock in? If you are to believe the Patagucci mission statement, they are in a quest to better the world. One could deduce that this also includes working to better their supply chain.
I spend more than I should there in part because of who they are as a company.
In fact, just picked up a rugged duffle bag and a few more t-shirts from them last week.
In fact, just picked up a rugged duffle bag and a few more t-shirts from them last week.
I hope they stay this way (or improve more) when future generations take over
I have fond memories of Patagonia catalogs when I was a kid. Had a much older brother who could actually afford the stuff, and he'd give us the catalog.
One bummer about the company:
They used to make most of their products in the USA, where environmental regulations are enforced and could be monitored.
The bulk of their manufacturing was outsourced in the last 2 decades. With their price points, it's not like they can't make a profit if they chose to make it here. They just don't.
Pointing this out, because it's an area where companies that have strong brand loyalty and make consumers feel good about things have fallen off. They embrace consumer sentiments on political, racial, and environmental causes, but then pursue fundamental actions that, in practice, radically undermine their stated values.
One bummer about the company:
They used to make most of their products in the USA, where environmental regulations are enforced and could be monitored.
The bulk of their manufacturing was outsourced in the last 2 decades. With their price points, it's not like they can't make a profit if they chose to make it here. They just don't.
Pointing this out, because it's an area where companies that have strong brand loyalty and make consumers feel good about things have fallen off. They embrace consumer sentiments on political, racial, and environmental causes, but then pursue fundamental actions that, in practice, radically undermine their stated values.
Agree. A system set up in enough detail to allow this principle to exist would be great: ‘here is some of my money, because I believe in you. I would like a return on it in the event your org continues to grow.‘
> This is obviously the right move.
Could you expand on this? Is this obviously right because it's FB being boycotted? I don't use FB - is it noticeably worse than youtube, reddit, twitter?
Could you expand on this? Is this obviously right because it's FB being boycotted? I don't use FB - is it noticeably worse than youtube, reddit, twitter?
> I’d love to own stock in them but i’m happier to have them stay private and not beholden to anyone else’s interests.
Stay private = only accredited investors (millionaires) can invest in them
Public companies = everyone can invest in them, including children, the poor, public pensions, etc.
Why would you want them to stay private and have only wealthy investors? You expect a company that has investors that are 100% from the upper class to act ethically? How many POC are wealthy enough to be accredited investors?
Stay private = only accredited investors (millionaires) can invest in them
Public companies = everyone can invest in them, including children, the poor, public pensions, etc.
Why would you want them to stay private and have only wealthy investors? You expect a company that has investors that are 100% from the upper class to act ethically? How many POC are wealthy enough to be accredited investors?
As a consumer, I have lost all confidence in facebook adverts. I see no shortage of scams with no real way to report them as a scam. One example was a series of adverts for a bike computer / light / alarm that was launched on kickstarter that I backed. I saw repeated adverts from various companies reporting to sell these devices for $15 to $20. I checked with the actual company who confirmed they were not real. Every time I blocked / reported the advert a few weeks later the same advice would reappear but a different seller.
Often adverts show you a great product sold for a third of what should be charged. If you buy they send you something worth a fraction of what you paid. If you pay they ask you to send it back for a full refund or they might offer to return some of the money. You need to pay for the return though. Facebook have these scams all over the place. I have lost all trust in the platform!
Often adverts show you a great product sold for a third of what should be charged. If you buy they send you something worth a fraction of what you paid. If you pay they ask you to send it back for a full refund or they might offer to return some of the money. You need to pay for the return though. Facebook have these scams all over the place. I have lost all trust in the platform!
They also wont let banks or oil companies purchase co-branded clothing...
https://boingboing.net/2019/04/02/fintech-bros-not-welcome.h...
IMO the whole refusing service is weird, not giving out advertisement dollars to specific companies make sense though.
https://boingboing.net/2019/04/02/fintech-bros-not-welcome.h...
IMO the whole refusing service is weird, not giving out advertisement dollars to specific companies make sense though.
Why is refusing service weird ? They are signalling their values with their checkbook, more than 99.9% than everyone else out there that just put up a few ig posts in "solidarity"
xhkkffbf(7)
An oil company ordering Patagonia would be delicious irony, but why banks? Are banks known for serious damage to their environment? Genuine question.
The FratBro culture at a lot of the financial sector was using the Patagonia vests as part of their "dress code". Patagonia decided they did not want to be associated with that culture.
Exactly this, Patagonia did not want to be supportive of a certain business culture.
Banks fund a lot of environmentally harmful projects. For example, here's a list of banks that funded the Dakota Access Pipeline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline#Financi...
Yes because moving oil by truck or rail is safer and environmentally sound? Pipelines are very green relative to the alternatives
As one current example, if you start looking at who is bankrolling and moving money for a lot of the current Amazon Forest destruction you will find the likes of Chase JPM, et. al. To save from picking a source, I'll just say it's a pretty easily duckable.
For banks it was an image problem, not wanting their outdoorsy customers to turn away from their products because they were popular with wall st types.
If you don’t start firing the wrong customers you’ll enevitably start designing your products for them.
Like how trucks have become godawful expensive monstrosities because their primary customers are buying them for the image instead of actually needing to use them on a regular basis.
If you don’t start firing the wrong customers you’ll enevitably start designing your products for them.
Like how trucks have become godawful expensive monstrosities because their primary customers are buying them for the image instead of actually needing to use them on a regular basis.
For added irony much of their clothing and equipment is made from synthetic materials derived from oil.
These are made of recycled materials, exclusively, IIRC. The environmental impact of their synthetic fibers is either 0 or negative. I could be wrong, since it's been a little while since I looked into it, but Patagonia's commitment to sustainable manufacturing is insanely inspiring.
Also: not a Patagonia shill, I just respect the company deeply. I don't even own any Patagonia (unfortunately)
Also: not a Patagonia shill, I just respect the company deeply. I don't even own any Patagonia (unfortunately)
They have a separate store for items made out of old Patagonia garments: https://wornwear.patagonia.com/shop/mens-sweaters
They're much cheaper than regular new items and still work great. I have a Synchilla sweater from there and it's one of my favorite pieces of clothing.
They're much cheaper than regular new items and still work great. I have a Synchilla sweater from there and it's one of my favorite pieces of clothing.
The clothes wear out over time scattering microplastics across the world. Fancy manufacturing doesn't help there
You're right in that they are trying and have a good track record in terms of environmentalism. However, when producing something for comsumption, there is always impact.
As someone from the Coca Cola company said once:
"“When we look at a different material, you look at all of the levers: the carbon footprint, consumer preference, energy, water...There’s a mix, there are some things that are not that desirable, but if you have five good things and one that isn’t, we’ll all have to make decisions.”
“It’ll never be that clean.”
As someone from the Coca Cola company said once:
"“When we look at a different material, you look at all of the levers: the carbon footprint, consumer preference, energy, water...There’s a mix, there are some things that are not that desirable, but if you have five good things and one that isn’t, we’ll all have to make decisions.”
“It’ll never be that clean.”
OK so if I follow, you make a false claim above ( >For added irony much of their clothing and equipment is made from synthetic materials derived from oil.), and now you're talking about Coca Cola?
Why don't you stop trying to make weird points, read the mission statements of companies akin to Patagonia, verify they are following their missions, AND THEN join the discussion?
For added cruft here are a list of the most common materials used by Patagucci:
- cotton
- hemp
- recycled* synthetic material
Here is a great place to get started on your research path: https://www.patagonia.com/activism/
Why don't you stop trying to make weird points, read the mission statements of companies akin to Patagonia, verify they are following their missions, AND THEN join the discussion?
For added cruft here are a list of the most common materials used by Patagucci:
- cotton
- hemp
- recycled* synthetic material
Here is a great place to get started on your research path: https://www.patagonia.com/activism/
Would they refuse co brand clothing with a community bank or a fintech focusing on serving the underserved, or a bank that finances initiatives that help the environment while avoiding financing initiatives that hurt the environment? Its possible to be a socially conscious fintech with net good generated in the world, since financial services isn't tied to something as fundamentally environmentally complicated as the energy sector.
I applaud Patagonia for being principled and for standing for something.
I deeply question justifying the decision based on this list of wrongs facebook did:
https://www.stophateforprofit.org/#comp-kba0i6jc
This is not very convincing. It's very emotional and I couldn't find a single source, or link, or evidence of these any of these claims on that website. It's basically one large corporation not really known for its ethics (the ADL) saying "side with us!" and telling you to hate the other large, faceless corporation not known for its ethics.
I deeply question justifying the decision based on this list of wrongs facebook did:
https://www.stophateforprofit.org/#comp-kba0i6jc
This is not very convincing. It's very emotional and I couldn't find a single source, or link, or evidence of these any of these claims on that website. It's basically one large corporation not really known for its ethics (the ADL) saying "side with us!" and telling you to hate the other large, faceless corporation not known for its ethics.
This is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
I haven't used Facebook for years, because their entire platform is based on collecting data and manipulating users to sell ads. They sell the collected data even when it's a gross violation of users' privacy, and manipulate even when it causes depression, addiction, fear, and anger. I absolutely support boycotting Facebook and in fact all social media[1].
But like it or not, Facebook has become a communications platform for a huge portion of our population, and as such, they have a responsibility to protect the free speech of their users. Starting off as a communications platform and then turning into a censored platform at this point would be a bait and switch, and a serious step toward totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism enforced by corporations isn't better than totalitarianism enforced by government. Free speech is an inalienable human right, and doesn't disappear because you've (foolishly) put a corporation in charge.
And while I do agree that totalitarianism enforced on behalf of good ideas like anti-racism is better than totalitarianism enforced on behalf of bad ideas is better, once we decide to give totalitarian power to corporations, there's no going back. I don't trust corporations with that power--Facebook has already shown that they cannot be trusted with this power when they censored Palestinian journalists in Israel, and cooperated with totalitarian regimes during the Arab spring to censor pro-democracy content. History has shown us over and over again that totalitarianism in the name of noble ideals always becomes corrupt.
[1] I'm notably a hypocrite with regards to Reddit. But just because I'm a hypocrite doesn't mean I'm wrong.
I haven't used Facebook for years, because their entire platform is based on collecting data and manipulating users to sell ads. They sell the collected data even when it's a gross violation of users' privacy, and manipulate even when it causes depression, addiction, fear, and anger. I absolutely support boycotting Facebook and in fact all social media[1].
But like it or not, Facebook has become a communications platform for a huge portion of our population, and as such, they have a responsibility to protect the free speech of their users. Starting off as a communications platform and then turning into a censored platform at this point would be a bait and switch, and a serious step toward totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism enforced by corporations isn't better than totalitarianism enforced by government. Free speech is an inalienable human right, and doesn't disappear because you've (foolishly) put a corporation in charge.
And while I do agree that totalitarianism enforced on behalf of good ideas like anti-racism is better than totalitarianism enforced on behalf of bad ideas is better, once we decide to give totalitarian power to corporations, there's no going back. I don't trust corporations with that power--Facebook has already shown that they cannot be trusted with this power when they censored Palestinian journalists in Israel, and cooperated with totalitarian regimes during the Arab spring to censor pro-democracy content. History has shown us over and over again that totalitarianism in the name of noble ideals always becomes corrupt.
[1] I'm notably a hypocrite with regards to Reddit. But just because I'm a hypocrite doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Increasingly, I'm bothered by corporate activism. Now, it's not merely a transactional exchange of value, but one of ideological posturing. I prefer business to be transactional, because it's honest and straightforward. Everything else is a facade. This company doesn't care about me. Google, for example, doesn't care about "not being evil". They just want dominance and money. They were supposed to be the anti-Microsoft and now, like the pigs in Animal Farm, I can't tell the difference between them and the humans. Same goes for all the other tech monopolies.
> I prefer business to be transactional, because it's honest and straightforward
No corporation or politicians will ever be "transactional" because that just doesn't sell. You just can't make branding or marketing without posturing.
And for a fashion corporation (e.g.: Patagonia) posturing is even more essential. They don't sell clothes, they sell posturing.
Deal with it: everybody is always acting, even you.
No corporation or politicians will ever be "transactional" because that just doesn't sell. You just can't make branding or marketing without posturing.
And for a fashion corporation (e.g.: Patagonia) posturing is even more essential. They don't sell clothes, they sell posturing.
Deal with it: everybody is always acting, even you.
Plenty of corporations are transactional. You just don't hear about them, they don't get PR points for being transactional. They just hum along and work quietly in the background and we often rely on their services and products.
I think pressure from individuals on corporations to act (or pretend to act) "responsibly" is a natural consequence of the unchecked power of those corporations, and politics failing to step in responsibly (and likely those two are related).
I much prefer Facebook's relatively laissez faire approach instead of Twitter's politically biased approach where hateful things are allowed as long as they are from the left side of the political spectrum.
Drawing the line on what is hate speech is a hard enough problem already, and companies like Google, Twitter don't even try to be impartial, their execs have clearly taken a side. Add to that the weird times we're living in and how people's fundamental moral ideas have diverted so much in the last 10 years, and you have a perfect disaster.
Facebook's approach is less harmful than the alternative right now.
Drawing the line on what is hate speech is a hard enough problem already, and companies like Google, Twitter don't even try to be impartial, their execs have clearly taken a side. Add to that the weird times we're living in and how people's fundamental moral ideas have diverted so much in the last 10 years, and you have a perfect disaster.
Facebook's approach is less harmful than the alternative right now.
> where hateful things are allowed as long as they are from the left side of the political spectrum
Citation needed.
It's not because you hear more often in the media about the right being censored that it means that hateful stuff from the left is allowed.
Citation needed.
It's not because you hear more often in the media about the right being censored that it means that hateful stuff from the left is allowed.
There were an incredible number of tweets calling to "Burn it down" or similar (about the fires in Minneapolis after the George Floyd protests).
I can link a few tweets, but with millions of twitter messages a day, I can hardly link enough to be statistically relevant if you choose to believe the other way, and I don't have the energy to randomly sample twitter.
I can link a few tweets, but with millions of twitter messages a day, I can hardly link enough to be statistically relevant if you choose to believe the other way, and I don't have the energy to randomly sample twitter.
Which is hateful against... buildings?
It's not that it's hateful. It's inciting and encouraging violence, which I'm pretty sure is against the ToS.
> Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people
Try again
Try again
Burning a building to the ground is presumably an (in)direct act of violence against the inhabitants of said building. 911, the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Kyoto Animation fire all come to mind.
It's generally understood that violence is something that happens to a person or living entity; buildings being burnt down is very different from a person being attacked. The word violence might be used for both, but really, it is meant in the modern day to refer to people.
Violence isn't about property that can be rebuilt with mere money. It is about hurting people.
Violence isn't about property that can be rebuilt with mere money. It is about hurting people.
How does burning down someone's business cause them no harm? You are implicitly making the claim that anyone who owns or leases a building for their business is rolling in excess money, which is incredibly ignorant, naïve, uncharitable, and untrue; especially when many of the businesses called for burning were locally owned, and many minority owned. That kind of thinking is pretty hideously warped, and you'd do well to rethink your worldview to avoid such malice.
> You are implicitly making the claim that anyone who owns or leases a building for their business is rolling in excess money, which is incredibly ignorant, naïve, uncharitable, and untrue
You are twisting my words. I make no implicit claim of that sort. Do you not see the difference between being 1) shot with a gun, or stabbed, or otherwise physically attacked in a violent moment, and 2) coming to work the next day to find your place of business burned?
Those are two very different things.
I do not mean to suggest that the employee whose work is burned is not hurt, but certainly, it is not a violent act against them as the other situation with guns or stabbing is.
> That kind of thinking is pretty hideously warped, and you'd do well to rethink your worldview to avoid such malice.
I really don't know about this comment. I think it is your worldview that is 'warped' but I wouldn't insult you by calling your traits 'hideous'. Please be more polite on HN.
You are twisting my words. I make no implicit claim of that sort. Do you not see the difference between being 1) shot with a gun, or stabbed, or otherwise physically attacked in a violent moment, and 2) coming to work the next day to find your place of business burned?
Those are two very different things.
I do not mean to suggest that the employee whose work is burned is not hurt, but certainly, it is not a violent act against them as the other situation with guns or stabbing is.
> That kind of thinking is pretty hideously warped, and you'd do well to rethink your worldview to avoid such malice.
I really don't know about this comment. I think it is your worldview that is 'warped' but I wouldn't insult you by calling your traits 'hideous'. Please be more polite on HN.
> You are twisting my words. I make no implicit claim of that sort. Do you not see the difference between being 1) shot with a gun, or stabbed, or otherwise physically attacked in a violent moment, and 2) coming to work the next day to find your place of business burned?
You are literally burning down someone's place of work and then you expect them to not be hurt? What guarantee can you give that the person who comes to work the next day to find his business burnt doesn't die of shock? If he dies does it not amount to murder? Who takes responsibility for his death?
I can't believe you are actually saying this stuff! People spend their entire life savings building a business! Having it burnt down is as good as murdering them! It is no different from someone pointing a gun at you and trying to kill you. People have survived gunshot wounds just like people have survived their buildings being burnt down. They both were hurt. One was hurt physically while the other suffered psychological hurt. And if someone died from gunshot wounds he is no different from someone dying of shock seeing his business being burnt to the ground. Both were killed out of violence. Both suffered pain. You cannot say one is more benign than the other! It is not!
You are literally burning down someone's place of work and then you expect them to not be hurt? What guarantee can you give that the person who comes to work the next day to find his business burnt doesn't die of shock? If he dies does it not amount to murder? Who takes responsibility for his death?
I can't believe you are actually saying this stuff! People spend their entire life savings building a business! Having it burnt down is as good as murdering them! It is no different from someone pointing a gun at you and trying to kill you. People have survived gunshot wounds just like people have survived their buildings being burnt down. They both were hurt. One was hurt physically while the other suffered psychological hurt. And if someone died from gunshot wounds he is no different from someone dying of shock seeing his business being burnt to the ground. Both were killed out of violence. Both suffered pain. You cannot say one is more benign than the other! It is not!
You're making a distinction between the employee and the owner, which is highly revealing. You don't think the owner works, supplies or has any value in the business they run. That is dehumanizing them. That is hideous. I stand by my words.
Come on you guys, when the discussion gets to this point, it's past time to stop. We want curious conversation here. Among other things, that requires a certain degree of relatability with the other person. If you don't have that, please just let go. Hammering on other people's words doesn't help.
There's a model of debate in which harshly countering other people's mistaken arguments is held to be valuable, because errors eventually get hammered out that way and the truth emerges as a sort of well-tempered steel. That model does not work in internet forums—for many reasons—the most important of which is the container can't withstand it. That is, the hammering destroys the forum itself long before the process completes (assuming it ever would). An entirely different kind of arguing is necessary to keep this place from destroying itself.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There's a model of debate in which harshly countering other people's mistaken arguments is held to be valuable, because errors eventually get hammered out that way and the truth emerges as a sort of well-tempered steel. That model does not work in internet forums—for many reasons—the most important of which is the container can't withstand it. That is, the hammering destroys the forum itself long before the process completes (assuming it ever would). An entirely different kind of arguing is necessary to keep this place from destroying itself.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I am making no such distinction! I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You stand by your words to insult me as hideous? Please stop.
> You don't think the owner works, supplies or has any value in the business they run.
I do not think like this. At all. I am not sure where you got that idea. Obviously the owner works, supplies and has value in the business they run...? I don't understand why you would think I don't agree with that?
You must please stop insulting me. I'm reporting your posts.
Edit: I've been banned (temporarily? For these posts?) and cannot reply to the user below.
> You don't think the owner works, supplies or has any value in the business they run.
I do not think like this. At all. I am not sure where you got that idea. Obviously the owner works, supplies and has value in the business they run...? I don't understand why you would think I don't agree with that?
You must please stop insulting me. I'm reporting your posts.
Edit: I've been banned (temporarily? For these posts?) and cannot reply to the user below.
Tell me: if a business owner has put all their life's savings into running a business, and comes one day to find it burned down by a mob, what is the likelihood that person will ever be able to return to any semblance of a normal life? What is the likelihood of despair, suicide, turning to drugs or alcohol?
It is very much a harm, as real and as tangible as those who receive physical injury, and just as much a threat to their lives.
EDIT: I've not reported your posts. I'd rather have a frank discussion regarding these and similar claims than to try to have them removed for perceived offensiveness.
It is very much a harm, as real and as tangible as those who receive physical injury, and just as much a threat to their lives.
EDIT: I've not reported your posts. I'd rather have a frank discussion regarding these and similar claims than to try to have them removed for perceived offensiveness.
Come on you guys, when the discussion gets to this point, it's past time to stop. See the rest of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23606594 also.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So I looked up their policy, and you seem to be correct there. Twitter defines violence as towards other individuals or groups. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules
However, if users are encouraging or telling others to break the law, that is also against Twitters policies.
> You may not use our service for any unlawful purpose or in furtherance of illegal activities.
Encouraging or inciting others to break the law is illegal.
Although it's on the illegal goods page, I think this could still be against their policy.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/regulated-goo...
However, if users are encouraging or telling others to break the law, that is also against Twitters policies.
> You may not use our service for any unlawful purpose or in furtherance of illegal activities.
Encouraging or inciting others to break the law is illegal.
Although it's on the illegal goods page, I think this could still be against their policy.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/regulated-goo...
The definition of violence: "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."
Unless we're using words in the humpty dumpty sense of "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Need a citation? Get on twitter and see how right wingers get banned on heated discussions with left wingers where BOTH are aggressive to each other.
The left also mass report stuff they don't like as "hate speech" which automatically results in a ban.
Sorry, but the hate speech stuff is just a new way to censor stuff some people don't like and in the end it'll affect us all, no matter if left or right wing.
The left also mass report stuff they don't like as "hate speech" which automatically results in a ban.
Sorry, but the hate speech stuff is just a new way to censor stuff some people don't like and in the end it'll affect us all, no matter if left or right wing.
A citation is still preferred because the nature of social media is that everyone experiences their own bubble of interactions. As a counter-anecdote, my experience has been that frivolous reporting is far more common coming from far-right political ideologists. Without citation, no one knows who's right/wrong or even how pervasive of a problem it is. It just results in zero discussion and turns into a flame war.
That's doesn't provide any evidence. Twitter doesn't block tweets for being "agressive", they block tweets for some very specific things like call to violence etc.
* Can you show that one side gets censored more often than the other? Not just based on your biased personal timeline.
* If yes, can you show that both sides breaks the ToS as often? Both sides are politically very different, and appeal to very different people, it's not hard to imagine that one side may indeed be more violent than the other.
So yes, I would like a citation.
* Can you show that one side gets censored more often than the other? Not just based on your biased personal timeline.
* If yes, can you show that both sides breaks the ToS as often? Both sides are politically very different, and appeal to very different people, it's not hard to imagine that one side may indeed be more violent than the other.
So yes, I would like a citation.
Alright since you asked for citation here is one: https://www.opindia.com/2019/04/popular-twitter-account-true...
This is a really popular right wing Twitter account in India which only dealt with exposing false narratives spread by leftist historians with facts. Facts from published books, memoirs of Kings who ruled India, sculptures and ancient artifacts. "True Indology" did not break any rules. Was not violent nor did he threaten anyone. Just exposing false narratives through facts. He was banned with no reason provided. This was not the first time his account was suspended. It was done multiple times. You can read complete details of what he experienced on Twitter here: https://www.mynation.com/views/true-indology-exposes-the-vic...
The number of right wing accounts shadow banned and suspended in India by Twitter is staggering. You never hear left wing accounts being suspended. No matter how much hate speech you come across. Heck those left wing accounts that get exposed for hate speech automatically turn their accounts private. That doesn't mean that Twitter doesn't know what is contained within the account right? It can still close down the account for violation of its policies. But it doesn't do that. There is a strong undercurrent against left-leaning biased social media sites like Twitter in India. It will just erupt one day just like Indians have erupted against TikTok. It is only a matter of time. Twitter is doing a big mistake by treating right wingers in India unfairly.
This is a really popular right wing Twitter account in India which only dealt with exposing false narratives spread by leftist historians with facts. Facts from published books, memoirs of Kings who ruled India, sculptures and ancient artifacts. "True Indology" did not break any rules. Was not violent nor did he threaten anyone. Just exposing false narratives through facts. He was banned with no reason provided. This was not the first time his account was suspended. It was done multiple times. You can read complete details of what he experienced on Twitter here: https://www.mynation.com/views/true-indology-exposes-the-vic...
The number of right wing accounts shadow banned and suspended in India by Twitter is staggering. You never hear left wing accounts being suspended. No matter how much hate speech you come across. Heck those left wing accounts that get exposed for hate speech automatically turn their accounts private. That doesn't mean that Twitter doesn't know what is contained within the account right? It can still close down the account for violation of its policies. But it doesn't do that. There is a strong undercurrent against left-leaning biased social media sites like Twitter in India. It will just erupt one day just like Indians have erupted against TikTok. It is only a matter of time. Twitter is doing a big mistake by treating right wingers in India unfairly.
OpIndia is a propaganda website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpIndia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpIndia
More Golden quotes from the Co-Founder of Wikipedia:
"It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one.4 It might be better to embrace a “credibility” policy and admit that their notion of what is credible does, in fact, bias them against conservatism, traditional religiosity, and minority perspectives on science and medicine—to say nothing of many other topics on which Wikipedia has biases.
Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change; they live in a fantasy world of their own making.5"
So much for neutrality!
Source: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
"It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one.4 It might be better to embrace a “credibility” policy and admit that their notion of what is credible does, in fact, bias them against conservatism, traditional religiosity, and minority perspectives on science and medicine—to say nothing of many other topics on which Wikipedia has biases.
Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change; they live in a fantasy world of their own making.5"
So much for neutrality!
Source: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
But honestly, without 'bias' unmoderated public forums (fora?) become flooded with 'minority perspectives' e.g. nonsense and conspiracy theories.
Then don't say that there is no bias. It insults our intelligence when you on the one hand stand for freedom of speech, take grandstanding that there is no bias whatsoever and when it is inconvenient for you say that bias exists and is needed and go ahead to justify it! This isn't freedom of speech by any means. Moderation cannot be denial of freedoms. Moderation can only be with regards to things that are universal. Like not being violent. That applies to both left and right wing. But even there, left-wing social media sites fail miserably. They suspend ring-wing accounts that are abusive (which I am all for) but they don't suspend left-wing accounts that are abusive. Why this double standards?
And whether OpIndia is a propaganda website or not doesn't change the fact that the popular account was suspended. You can check it here: https://twitter.com/TrueIndology
Is the suspension propaganda too? How far will the left be willing to take this until it all implodes? The right wing feels so devoid of freedom of speech on these platforms that there will be a major revolt! Alternative platforms that are either right wing or neutral would prop up challenging the hegemony of these left-wing dominated platforms. And that will be the end of social media as we know it in its current form. There is a strong undercurrent and to deny that would be folly!
Is the suspension propaganda too? How far will the left be willing to take this until it all implodes? The right wing feels so devoid of freedom of speech on these platforms that there will be a major revolt! Alternative platforms that are either right wing or neutral would prop up challenging the hegemony of these left-wing dominated platforms. And that will be the end of social media as we know it in its current form. There is a strong undercurrent and to deny that would be folly!
OpIndia is not a propaganda website. Period. This is the typical slander that happens when you refer to left-wing articles. If you are referring to left-wing portal Wikipedia as your citation then something is really wrong with you. The point I was making was precisely this. That social media is dominated by the left-wing and the left-wing narrative. Anything that is published on left-wing outlets is taken as truth without even bothering to question the sources.
So when the entire question is about left-wing bias you go ahead and show me a Wikipedia entry whose management and editors are known to have left-wing bias! In fact the Co-Founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger himself says that Wikipedia's Neutrality is dead because of left-wing bias [1]!
A quote from his blog post:
"Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.1 The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance.”2 The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science. Here are some examples from each of these subjects, which were easy to find, no hunting around. Many, many more could be given."
It is a fact that social media management is dominated by left-wing bias. No wonder so many right-leaning articles and accounts are banned on a regular basis. If you do not give the right-wing a voice they will make sure they are heard louder than ever!
The entire IFCN saga has been rebutted point by point by OpIndia [2]
OpIndia exposed many fake news articles published by BBC which was forced to backtrack. Then BBC claimed that it was a "mistake" and that corrections were made subsequently after being exposed. This was never a "mistake". It is purely left-wing bias.
[1]: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
[2]: https://www.opindia.com/2019/03/opindia-response-to-ifcn-int...
So when the entire question is about left-wing bias you go ahead and show me a Wikipedia entry whose management and editors are known to have left-wing bias! In fact the Co-Founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger himself says that Wikipedia's Neutrality is dead because of left-wing bias [1]!
A quote from his blog post:
"Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.1 The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance.”2 The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science. Here are some examples from each of these subjects, which were easy to find, no hunting around. Many, many more could be given."
It is a fact that social media management is dominated by left-wing bias. No wonder so many right-leaning articles and accounts are banned on a regular basis. If you do not give the right-wing a voice they will make sure they are heard louder than ever!
The entire IFCN saga has been rebutted point by point by OpIndia [2]
OpIndia exposed many fake news articles published by BBC which was forced to backtrack. Then BBC claimed that it was a "mistake" and that corrections were made subsequently after being exposed. This was never a "mistake". It is purely left-wing bias.
[1]: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
[2]: https://www.opindia.com/2019/03/opindia-response-to-ifcn-int...
[deleted]
spiderfarmer(1)
I am citing this comment as an example
I'm about as left wing as you can get, but Twitter is incredibly biased.
August Ames chose not to have sex with men who have sex with men. Because of this decision to do what she wants with her own body, she was harassed by people telling her to commit suicide for it.
She DID kill herself, and the people that told her to were not even banned.
https://www.spartareport.com/2017/12/leftists-bullied-august...
August Ames chose not to have sex with men who have sex with men. Because of this decision to do what she wants with her own body, she was harassed by people telling her to commit suicide for it.
She DID kill herself, and the people that told her to were not even banned.
https://www.spartareport.com/2017/12/leftists-bullied-august...
If these claims of censorship were true, where would you expect to find a citation?
If I linked you threads of people like Tariq Nashad calling for racial violence against whites, my post would likely be flagged and I'd be banned for posting flamebait.
I don't think there's an explicit conspiracy but the forces are aligned such that they suppress content and naturally suppress criticism of suppression, and that creates an internet-wide false consensus.
If I linked you threads of people like Tariq Nashad calling for racial violence against whites, my post would likely be flagged and I'd be banned for posting flamebait.
I don't think there's an explicit conspiracy but the forces are aligned such that they suppress content and naturally suppress criticism of suppression, and that creates an internet-wide false consensus.
What about the call to dox the Covington kids by a verified account. Is there anything comparable to it on the right side? I do not think so. The rules for thee, but not for me.
https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086927762634399744?...
You mean like the numerous calls from many top GOP lawmakers to dox the Ukraine scandal whistleblower?
Probably dozens of tweets just from the president and not one was censored.
Probably dozens of tweets just from the president and not one was censored.
Giving examples of the type of content that's permitted from the left, but not the right, could be helpful to your argument. As someone who leans left, it's hard to see the bias. One other piece of contextual relevance is tweets from POTUS stay up due to their newsworthiness. If a Democratic president tweeted identical statements to Trump, I would expect identical treatment: no removal, but tagged with phrases like "Get the facts" (e.g., on coronavirus) or tweets hidden for glorying violence.
The president is a huge exception to the rule. 3 and a half years ago, I think (citation needed) it was found that Twitter was obligated to keep Trump tweets up because he is president and those are now official record. There was that whole big to do wat back then about him deleting one of his tweets and whether that was allowed or not.
Allowed by whom? Twitter can delete anything of Trump's, and can delete his account if they want to.
Things get complicated with the president. This whole thing happened: https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/sep/27/what-does-law...
That's entirely about the government's responsibility to retain records. Twitter has zero obligation.
Here is a demonstrably false thing that Twitter doesn't censor: https://twitter.com/search?q=black%20egyptians&src=typed_que...
I have not seen them censor the Black Egyptian or Black Moor hypotheses in spite of being associated with Black Supremacy and being "demonstrably false" which is a category of things the #StopHateForProfit campaigns are targeting.
In fairness I don't know what content ends up being blocked, maybe there is a way to see it. But I have seen particular efforts, such as the doctored video Donald Trump recently posted, to tag content as misleading but I have not seen this for the above. As you pointed out, they did the same for coronavirus. Perhaps some of this debate is just about the 'reach' of content but afaict the Black Egyptian disinformation is prevalent. I might be wrong, I don't know all the ins and outs of Twitter blocking.
I have not seen them censor the Black Egyptian or Black Moor hypotheses in spite of being associated with Black Supremacy and being "demonstrably false" which is a category of things the #StopHateForProfit campaigns are targeting.
In fairness I don't know what content ends up being blocked, maybe there is a way to see it. But I have seen particular efforts, such as the doctored video Donald Trump recently posted, to tag content as misleading but I have not seen this for the above. As you pointed out, they did the same for coronavirus. Perhaps some of this debate is just about the 'reach' of content but afaict the Black Egyptian disinformation is prevalent. I might be wrong, I don't know all the ins and outs of Twitter blocking.
[deleted]
I feel exactly the opposite of you. Facebook is a right-wing echo chamber, and I've left along with all of my family (moving outwards to more extended family).
Boycotting Facebook ads for a month and a half. Then they'll be back at it.
https://twitter.com/patagonia/status/1274832569398292480
https://twitter.com/patagonia/status/1274832569398292480
"through at least the end of July"
at least
As in, they're starting here, and they'll continue if they don't see action.
Patagonia is privately held and they seem like an organization that would follow principals over profits, in general.
This is a clearer message to Facebook than an outright loss. Facebook now has to say "We lost this month, are we willing to lose next month? And the month after?" as opposed to "Well, we lost the revenue, no use crying over spilled milk".
at least
As in, they're starting here, and they'll continue if they don't see action.
Patagonia is privately held and they seem like an organization that would follow principals over profits, in general.
This is a clearer message to Facebook than an outright loss. Facebook now has to say "We lost this month, are we willing to lose next month? And the month after?" as opposed to "Well, we lost the revenue, no use crying over spilled milk".
Patagonia gets the PR bump today for axing Facebook advertising. If they resume in a month, without FB changing its ways, they get to walk to walk without talking the talk. By giving Patagonia a huge amount of free coverage, it's on them to actually maintain their values until FB changes-- and we have no means of holding them accountable to this.
OK, but to link the tweet, say "It's only July", and not mention that they state they'll continue to do so is disingenuous.
[deleted]
A better statement would be "until Facebook does X" instead of "at least until deadline". Clever use of language is not lost on their marketing/PR/legal teams
Correct. This was a pointless move. Even if Facebook felt a fraction of pressure from Patagonia, they won't budge because the company will just return in August with ad-buys.
The better move was to stop ad purchases _permanently_.
The better move was to stop ad purchases _permanently_.
> effective immediately, through at least the end of July, pending meaningful action from the social media giant.
The important part is the "pending meaningful action" - end of July is the minimum timing, which can extend if no meaningful action is taken.
The pressure on Facebook is not about the media spend of Patagonia, is being called out by them and taking a stand.
The important part is the "pending meaningful action" - end of July is the minimum timing, which can extend if no meaningful action is taken.
The pressure on Facebook is not about the media spend of Patagonia, is being called out by them and taking a stand.
Are there any people trading on companies trading their profitability for moral righteousness? Many companies are doing poorly now anyways, but I wonder if it is actually possible to convert these types of actions into gains.
> Are there any people trading on companies trading their profitability for moral righteousness?
Blackrock controls about $6 trillion in investments. They announced a move to socially responsible investing over two years ago. And it's becoming a common question investors are asking startups: what positive long term impact will you have on society?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/blackrocks-push-for-social-r...
Blackrock controls about $6 trillion in investments. They announced a move to socially responsible investing over two years ago. And it's becoming a common question investors are asking startups: what positive long term impact will you have on society?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/blackrocks-push-for-social-r...
Not a chance. To Wall Street, social justice, "good morals" and ethics are not profitable.
[deleted]
[deleted]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_responsible_investing
I don't think this makes sense in general. It's more effective to trade in whatever is profitable, then donate to causes you care about. Jim Cramer talked about investing in tobacco companies then donating his profits to antismoking charities.
I don't think this makes sense in general. It's more effective to trade in whatever is profitable, then donate to causes you care about. Jim Cramer talked about investing in tobacco companies then donating his profits to antismoking charities.
Two obvious potential problems come to mind.
First, not all types of “damage” and “repair” completely annihilate each other with no lasting effects. Protected areas like national parks are a great example of that. Donating to a charity that plants trees does not just “undo” investments in old-growth logging companies.
Secondly, the economies of scale that your tobacco company investments contribute toward may overwhelm the economies of scale that your charity donations contribute toward.
First, not all types of “damage” and “repair” completely annihilate each other with no lasting effects. Protected areas like national parks are a great example of that. Donating to a charity that plants trees does not just “undo” investments in old-growth logging companies.
Secondly, the economies of scale that your tobacco company investments contribute toward may overwhelm the economies of scale that your charity donations contribute toward.
Profit is not a meaningful metric for whether or not a company should exist. When your cash is on the line I'm sure it is very easy to have flexible morals, but making returns on death and oppression is not a world I want to be a part of.
markets are organisms, and nature knows nothing of 'morality'- everyone who tries to trade on righteousness vastly underperforms the market
There’s various funds that do.
Eg, https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/overview/...
Eg, https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/overview/...
[deleted]
I find it scary that so many companies are asserting their political will so aggressively. I don't think this will end well.
Companies have been asserting their political will quite aggressively for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lobbying_in_the_Uni...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lobbying_in_the_Uni...
Can you elaborate on that? What about this story is scary to you?
Facebook has made a point that they'd rather not build a world where Mark Zuckerberg's schmucks decide who can express their opinions and who can't. Patagonia is targeting Facebook not because Facebook is full of hate, but for failing to censor things they deem hateful.
Patagonia's stance against hate some merit to it, but it is in the end an illiberal stance, one which fails to acknowledge the concept that freedom of speech may be a broadly good thing. As society becomes more illiberal, the list of "hate" will grow broader and the list of approved politicians and causes will grow narrower. I am sure that there are a few on these pages who would be ever so thrilled to ban the entire Republican party from advertising entirely.
We have had similar episodes in this nation's history. The Red Scare comes to mind. The House Unamerican Activities committee set out to find the Communists and Russian agents who were infiltrating government and society at all levels. And there were, in truth, a lot of Russian agents who had infiltrated American government. And yet today we mostly do not talk about that, for instead, we must talk about how the HUAC, its blacklists which would ban people from industry, was a deranged exercise in paranoia, guilt-by-loose-association, and its own forms of hatred.
Today's cancel culture, in which Patagona's boycott is but the smallest plank, is the new HUAC. It differs in that it is not run by government and it is generally leaderless. It is the same in that there are a lot of things which are legitimately problems, and it finds some of them. It is the same in that it deploys abusive media and social-media attention on small-time nobodies, destroying their careers and their livelihoods, in an effort to create an atmosphere of fear and silence its opposition. And I can only hope that future generations will look back on us aghast and ask, "what the hell was wrong with these people?"
Patagonia's stance against hate some merit to it, but it is in the end an illiberal stance, one which fails to acknowledge the concept that freedom of speech may be a broadly good thing. As society becomes more illiberal, the list of "hate" will grow broader and the list of approved politicians and causes will grow narrower. I am sure that there are a few on these pages who would be ever so thrilled to ban the entire Republican party from advertising entirely.
We have had similar episodes in this nation's history. The Red Scare comes to mind. The House Unamerican Activities committee set out to find the Communists and Russian agents who were infiltrating government and society at all levels. And there were, in truth, a lot of Russian agents who had infiltrated American government. And yet today we mostly do not talk about that, for instead, we must talk about how the HUAC, its blacklists which would ban people from industry, was a deranged exercise in paranoia, guilt-by-loose-association, and its own forms of hatred.
Today's cancel culture, in which Patagona's boycott is but the smallest plank, is the new HUAC. It differs in that it is not run by government and it is generally leaderless. It is the same in that there are a lot of things which are legitimately problems, and it finds some of them. It is the same in that it deploys abusive media and social-media attention on small-time nobodies, destroying their careers and their livelihoods, in an effort to create an atmosphere of fear and silence its opposition. And I can only hope that future generations will look back on us aghast and ask, "what the hell was wrong with these people?"
> one which fails to acknowledge the concept that freedom of speech may be a broadly good thing.
How does Patagonia's stance do anything to freedom of speech? I don't follow your post after this assertion.
Is Patagonia not exercising its rights directly? Are you suggesting that a more-free-speech approach would be having the government force you to sell your products directly to people you don't want to?
I'm confused how you connected Patagonia's actions to free speech. They are standing up for free speech and free actions, if anything, and it sounds like you're suggesting that they are against free speech with this move.
But free speech is the very idea that supports and protects this move.
How does Patagonia's stance do anything to freedom of speech? I don't follow your post after this assertion.
Is Patagonia not exercising its rights directly? Are you suggesting that a more-free-speech approach would be having the government force you to sell your products directly to people you don't want to?
I'm confused how you connected Patagonia's actions to free speech. They are standing up for free speech and free actions, if anything, and it sounds like you're suggesting that they are against free speech with this move.
But free speech is the very idea that supports and protects this move.
Patagonia's actions are 100% within their rights. Patagonia's actions are 100% about exercising their rights, as you say. Both Facebook and Patagonia are entitled by the First Amendment, as reiterated by Citizens United, to exercise the freedom of speech directly, on behalf of their owners or shareholders. There is no First Amendment violation of any sort.
Nevertheless, the thing that Patagonia are exercising their rights to do is a call for censorship. The point of the boycott is to pressure Facebook to censor users' content, with the aims of preventing certain viewpoints from being expressed. These viewpoints are likely noxious.
This is a call for censorship in practice. This exercise in free speech seeks to undermine the exercise of free speech. This movement is a call to reduce the freedoms which is made available in practice to the people of the world.
I do not believe it will stop here. I believe it will not stop until it is very harmful. I believe someday the fruits of this movement, if successful, will gravely harm the freedoms of expression generally.
I therefore condemn and denounce it (though I will not call for it to be censored.)
Nevertheless, the thing that Patagonia are exercising their rights to do is a call for censorship. The point of the boycott is to pressure Facebook to censor users' content, with the aims of preventing certain viewpoints from being expressed. These viewpoints are likely noxious.
This is a call for censorship in practice. This exercise in free speech seeks to undermine the exercise of free speech. This movement is a call to reduce the freedoms which is made available in practice to the people of the world.
I do not believe it will stop here. I believe it will not stop until it is very harmful. I believe someday the fruits of this movement, if successful, will gravely harm the freedoms of expression generally.
I therefore condemn and denounce it (though I will not call for it to be censored.)
It is far more transparent than the companies that donate literally hundreds of millions of dollars in total to political campaigns.
This is "letting the market decide".
I find it scary that you find this scary. Personally, I find it terrifying how few companies dare to take a stand on a topic. It's refreshing to see morals enter business.
What damage do you see coming from a company deciding to act ethically? The damage I see comes only from ignoring the world, plugging your ears, and selling your product to anyone who approaches. That sounds like the more dangerous option, rather than weighing your choices and making informed decisions about how you interact with the world.
What damage do you see coming from a company deciding to act ethically? The damage I see comes only from ignoring the world, plugging your ears, and selling your product to anyone who approaches. That sounds like the more dangerous option, rather than weighing your choices and making informed decisions about how you interact with the world.
goatinaboat(1)
Yawn... So what happened to the #DeleteFacebook campaign.
With the number of times Facebook has been cancelled, one is still shocked their is anything to boycott.
Haven't been a fan of Zucks but he has earned my respect for being the sane head in the Chaos.
Funny, they are also using Facebook to organize to boycott... That should say something to them
With the number of times Facebook has been cancelled, one is still shocked their is anything to boycott.
Haven't been a fan of Zucks but he has earned my respect for being the sane head in the Chaos.
Funny, they are also using Facebook to organize to boycott... That should say something to them
They really do make the best clothing I have ever owned, fantastic comfort, practical, good styling and colour palettes.
A great bonus that they also have a strong ethics. My jacket uses down that is certified as being cruelty free, the factories are checked for fair working practices.
A great bonus that they also have a strong ethics. My jacket uses down that is certified as being cruelty free, the factories are checked for fair working practices.
I don't like Facebook ads, and I wish there was no hateful messages. BUT I hate censorship even more and I think Facebook's approach is better than Twitter's. And personally even if I like Patagonia and North Face (own multiple products of both), I just won't be able to buy their products anymore with a clear conscience because they push censorship. I think it's fine to be a left leaning company, I know North Face and others have support immigration policies, which I'm all for. But trying to force other businesses to shut up is another level.
The beauty of this country is diversity. But if you are applying selective diversity until it fits 100% your views that's not good either.
The beauty of this country is diversity. But if you are applying selective diversity until it fits 100% your views that's not good either.
One of my concerns with censorship is that I want to know if people in power are saying these terrible things. When it's simply deleted or hidden, it's like it never happened. I'd much rather it be out there for the world to see.
What are they asking Facebook to do?
It sounds like they're demanding that Facebook censor content and advertisements, as long as it aligns with Patagonia's politics.
And they are using the power of the mob to guilt trip other companies into joining them.
And they are using the power of the mob to guilt trip other companies into joining them.
If I'm a small business owner and I buy billboard space from a guy (Jimmy) who also sells billboard space to advertisers who publish racist/sexist content, is it unreasonable for me to spend my money elsewhere until Jimmy quits his bs? What if Jimmy freely sends mailers too, to anyone who asks, and I want him to not send mailers if they are racist? If I was in that position and you told me you had a problem with what I was doing, I would tell you to get off my lawn.
The underlying topic here is free speech. I'm sure you were on-board with YouTube censoring the "Plandemic" video last month, right? You probably said "YouTube is a private company and they have the right to do whatever they want". Well, Facebook is a private company and they can also "do whatever they want".
But at least Facebook is letting natural market forces play out rather than become a subjective information gatekeeper.
But at least Facebook is letting natural market forces play out rather than become a subjective information gatekeeper.
How does this affect free speech?
Yes, I think that's unreasonable for you to do, almost as bad as if you demanded that Jimmy fire some of his employees for nasty things they said on Twitter. Demanding that your business partners can only do business with third parties you approve of is a recipe for extreme and toxic fragmentation.
'Nasty things' is a little bit nebulous. If the nasty thing in this case is this phrase: 'blacks are disagreeable.' I would absolutely either demand that person be fired or take my business elsewhere. I think furthering racism is more of a recipe for toxic fragmentation than firing racist, and don't see how it's unreasonable for me in that scenario to not want my money going into the hands of that racist employee.
It's meant to be nebulous, since that's how such a standard inevitably ends up. You and I consider racial hatred to be beyond the pale - but others say the same thing about calls to send in the National Guard, or opposition to Israel. If you can't say anything that any of your second-degree connections would find terrible, you can't really say anything controversial at all.
If we stop putting speech on a pedestal for just a second and consider it as a subset of all the actions someone can perform: if I buy products from a $clothingBrand and one of their C-levels commits a hate crime am I allowed to stop buying their clothes in protest? I think it's relatively uncontroversial to say I am. I don't want to further empower an racist abuser with my money, so it's reasonable for me to spend it elsewhere. What about if the C-level donates money to Dylann Roof's defense? I don't want my money going there either, so I'm going to do the same as in the first case. What if the C-level says 'blacks are distasteful' on twitter? Well, in the same way that physically harming someone and spending money are concrete actions with serious consequences, speech is also a concrete action with serious consequences. Imagine being a black employee at $clothingBrand: you will feel uncomfortable working there, you might worry about losing your job for a stupid reason or getting passed over for a promotion you deserve. Imagine being a racist employee at $clothingBrand: you will feel more assured in discriminating against your fellow employees who are black, because you know at least one C-level is actively racist, and more are okay with it. That C-level's speech will have significant consequences for both of these people, and if I want to avoid these outcomes in other companies I will stand in protest to stop it from happening again.
Now you might say, 'what if you complain about $controversialForeignPolicy on twitter and your employer is pressured to fire you?' Well I wouldn't like it, but not for the reason you would think. I have political goals I want to further, and I want a job. But I the problem does not lie for me in someone who thinks my actions are harmful complaining to my employer, the key difference is just that I think my statement and action has a good outcome and that the C-level's statements and actions have bad outcomes. Everyone has political, social, and economic capital to spend, and in general there is no problem for me with anyone spending it to stop other people from doing bad things. There are many sanctions we delegate to our government in our so-called social contract, but there are still a few we can and should leave at our own disposal.
Now you might say, 'what if you complain about $controversialForeignPolicy on twitter and your employer is pressured to fire you?' Well I wouldn't like it, but not for the reason you would think. I have political goals I want to further, and I want a job. But I the problem does not lie for me in someone who thinks my actions are harmful complaining to my employer, the key difference is just that I think my statement and action has a good outcome and that the C-level's statements and actions have bad outcomes. Everyone has political, social, and economic capital to spend, and in general there is no problem for me with anyone spending it to stop other people from doing bad things. There are many sanctions we delegate to our government in our so-called social contract, but there are still a few we can and should leave at our own disposal.
I think speech should be put on a pedestal. I hate to give such a pithy response, but if you don't - if you aim to work towards a world where nobody can say offensive things - I'm not sure there's much for us to discuss here.
I didn't say speech wasn't special, I asked you to consider it as a kind of action, which it is. I value the free exchange of ideas because speech is such a significant kind of action. What I said is that I should be free to associate with people who do good things with that amazing freedom. What is the conclusion of your argument? That speech is so important that I shouldn't be able to pick who I want to be friends or business partners with based on what they say?
Yes, I consider speech to be that important. I don't think you should pick friends or business partners that way, although I don't think you should be forbidden to either.
It would be hard to come up with a less charitable interpretation than that. You're all through this thread making salty comments. It does seem somewhat ironic that you seem to be making some kind of free speech argument for Facebook... by getting irrationally upset that a company decided to exercise theirs by not giving them money for a while.
https://www.stophateforprofit.org/productrecommendations
It's definitely interesting. I like these two:
>At the request of a member of a private group, provide at least one Facebook-affiliated moderator per group with more than 150 members. Consider more moderators for even larger groups.
Spy on any group with more than 150 members if a someone asks you to spy on them.
>Create an internal mechanism to automatically flag content in private groups associated with extremist ideologies for human review. This content and associated groups would then be reviewed by internal subject matter experts on extremism.
Read private group content, analyze it, and flag it if it's thoughtcrime.
It's definitely interesting. I like these two:
>At the request of a member of a private group, provide at least one Facebook-affiliated moderator per group with more than 150 members. Consider more moderators for even larger groups.
Spy on any group with more than 150 members if a someone asks you to spy on them.
>Create an internal mechanism to automatically flag content in private groups associated with extremist ideologies for human review. This content and associated groups would then be reviewed by internal subject matter experts on extremism.
Read private group content, analyze it, and flag it if it's thoughtcrime.
Will they still let Facebook buy co-branded clothing?
[deleted]
They're getting an awful lot of free advertising by grandstanding that they won't pay for advertising.
...during July.
Goes to show which of the two companies is actually more powerful.
Goes to show which of the two companies is actually more powerful.
I think you misunderstood their statement.
[deleted]
I do t think advertised boycotts will really sway Facebook. At the end of the day, they provide access to a billion users. That is valuable, and companies are going to pay money to advertise to those users.
Sitting here in my Patagonia shorts thinking that I will never buy another product from them. If they want to play in politics, they will lose half of their customer base.
Having opinions about politics is not exactly new for Patagonia. I mean, they changed their homepage to say THE PRESIDENT STOLE YOUR LAND when Trump shrank Bears Ears.
Meta: what's with the top-level comments in here? A lot of serious tangents, praising or digging at Patagonia's practices, instead of focusing on the subject at hand. Trying to signal moral standing of the party in question, so people can decide how to respond to this action?
Where's that picture of obama giving himself a medal when you need it?
Given there are a very large amount of nearly identical t-shirts and caps you can buy, a clothing company's sole strategy is marketing. If you think this "boycotting" isn't also marketing, you're a sucker. Stop with all the comments about their "principles". They sell goddamn t-shirts. Manufactured in China btw.
Facebook should indefinitely suspend any company who partakes in this from using their platform (advertising, fan pages, groups, etc).
See how much those companies like censorship when it impacts their bottom line.
See how much those companies like censorship when it impacts their bottom line.
One would have to approach that very carefully without completely spooking your advertising customers. Suspending a company for suspending its marketing spend on your platform would be one hell of a precedence to set.
Enshrining something like a zero tolerance policy for anti-FB activism on the platform would be one avenue to pursue, but that is also threading a fine line.
Shadow banning activists might be a nice intermediary e.g. you can still post to your page but it absolutely will not show up on other people's feeds.
Enshrining something like a zero tolerance policy for anti-FB activism on the platform would be one avenue to pursue, but that is also threading a fine line.
Shadow banning activists might be a nice intermediary e.g. you can still post to your page but it absolutely will not show up on other people's feeds.
"My customers are annoyed with me? I'd better declare war on them."
That's... not usually a very sensible route for a company to go.
That's... not usually a very sensible route for a company to go.
This would have a massively detrimental PR effect on Facebook.
It would strongly incentivize people to look for other options, and to diversify.
It would strongly incentivize people to look for other options, and to diversify.
"censorship"
sorry, but it's business.
sorry, but it's business.
[deleted]
Seems like a marketing ploy. Everyone is cutting spending right now due to the economic downturn. What better way to cut spending you were going to cut than turn it into a publicity stunt that translates into likes on Twitter!
Great time to buy outdoor apparel ads on FB, btw.
Great time to buy outdoor apparel ads on FB, btw.
If it were a great time to buy outdoor apparel ads, and Patagonia were only concerned with their bottom line, then I expect they would not stop buying outdoor apparel ads. You really can’t have this both ways.
I think the parent is implying that it's a good time to buy outdoor apparel ads _because_ Patagonia is no longer buying ads. Ad impressions are sold as price per impression, so if a major player is no longer there to bid up the prices, then prices should be lower in theory.
Exactly right. Prices for the smaller players will drop or otherwise be easier to get broader exposure for the same product category.
If I was running an ecommerce business, this would be a strong signal to buy placement on FB.
If I was running an ecommerce business, this would be a strong signal to buy placement on FB.
Since they're only stopping for the month of July, I now suspect that you're presumption is correct.
Another poster covered this point better than I could: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23602328
Wow what a nothingburger this is, and the press took it hook line and sinker. Amazing PR
PR is the whole point, but it's also PR against Facebook. For sure this won't make Facebook cry for the lost of ads dollar, but it's another day in the press where Facebook is being looked as the bad guy, and ultimately that might influence Facebook.
I sort of agree with the first part but I fail to see how this translates into "great time to buy outdoor apparel ads" when the market leaders are forced to cut spending.
It's cheaper to get clicks because there's less competition for the keyword. True for a lot of categories right now.
But are those clicks worth as much if spending is down ?
Probably more room for the smaller players to get their ads seen. Idk if pricing or visibility is realistically affected by market saturation though.
I think you underestimate what vision and mission of companies are, maybe because for a lot of them it's fluff.
I'll reframe it: it's being leverage by marketing, it's not a marketing ploy in itself.
And that's fine - they are letting their audience, and potential new audiences, know their stance on a specific matter, to try to make a change. If it's amplified by media, it's great, that's why it's called "earned media".
Plus, they are not saying "We won't allow anyone in our supply chain to use Facebook Ads to advertise our products.", so they're are not hurting any businesses.
They are simply taking a position and owning it - like they did with a lot of things.
Patagonia understands branding quite well, and they understand the power of consistency when you want to build a long term and sustainable brand. Specially if you want to change the world.
You don't have to be a tech company that develops the next level of AI, or a new efficient fuel light-weight fuel, or a pharmaceutical company that develops the cure for a type of cancer, to make effective change.
Patagonia caters to a specific audience. They are doing their part to try to make what they believe is positive change.
I'll reframe it: it's being leverage by marketing, it's not a marketing ploy in itself.
And that's fine - they are letting their audience, and potential new audiences, know their stance on a specific matter, to try to make a change. If it's amplified by media, it's great, that's why it's called "earned media".
Plus, they are not saying "We won't allow anyone in our supply chain to use Facebook Ads to advertise our products.", so they're are not hurting any businesses.
They are simply taking a position and owning it - like they did with a lot of things.
Patagonia understands branding quite well, and they understand the power of consistency when you want to build a long term and sustainable brand. Specially if you want to change the world.
You don't have to be a tech company that develops the next level of AI, or a new efficient fuel light-weight fuel, or a pharmaceutical company that develops the cure for a type of cancer, to make effective change.
Patagonia caters to a specific audience. They are doing their part to try to make what they believe is positive change.
Does Patagonia have influencers or ambassadors on Instagram?
If so, this is a bit of virtual signaling as they're still advertising on FB but not directly.
Facebook/IG ads is one of the best ad placements left on the market, IMHO.
If so, this is a bit of virtual signaling as they're still advertising on FB but not directly.
Facebook/IG ads is one of the best ad placements left on the market, IMHO.
They’re a very rare company in terms of being bullheaded about their principles: for sure, something they maintain from their founder.
I’d love to own stock in them but i’m happier to have them stay private and not beholden to anyone else’s interests.