First thought. We need to distinguish between, for example, asking corporations to stop jumping into culture war issues, versus asking them to jump in but only on our side.
I think we can choose "I will not be using your services if you are turning into a propaganda machine for either side of a divisive issue (versus say, a news organiza…
First thought. We need to distinguish between, for example, asking corporations to stop jumping into culture war issues, versus asking them to jump in but only on our side.
I think we can choose "I will not be using your services if you are turning into a propaganda machine for either side of a divisive issue (versus say, a news organization or entertainment company or school or widget factory)", versus "I will boycott you unless you turn into a propaganda machine for my side".
---
The harder part is doing the same if the institution is biased towards our own side.
But while that would be good, even being silent about a company taking our side, and withdrawing support from one taking the other side, could be net helpfu - IF both sides were doing that. That is, in this case, the optimal course would be for the company to be neutral as an acceptable non-punished option for both sides, while taking a side was punished by the one side and ignored by the other.
I think of Disney World. I doubt that their jumping into politics will provide a sustained and substantial number of additional visits from the favored side, while it will result in sustained alienation from customers on the other side. Business is better if both sides feel welcome to visit (neutrality).
However, today's reality is that there are many who are trying to coerce institutions to take their side and threatening to punish neutrality as immoral or betrayal.
Often this is coming from employees rather than customers.
This is where I feel a lot of ambivalence. At one level, I think that employees trying to get their employer to manifest their own values is a very legitimate bottom-up democratic force. On the other side, I see where that approach leads and don't like it (no matter which side said employees are on). I may not resolve this internal conflict soon.
First thought. We need to distinguish between, for example, asking corporations to stop jumping into culture war issues, versus asking them to jump in but only on our side.
I think we can choose "I will not be using your services if you are turning into a propaganda machine for either side of a divisive issue (versus say, a news organization or entertainment company or school or widget factory)", versus "I will boycott you unless you turn into a propaganda machine for my side".
---
The harder part is doing the same if the institution is biased towards our own side.
But while that would be good, even being silent about a company taking our side, and withdrawing support from one taking the other side, could be net helpfu - IF both sides were doing that. That is, in this case, the optimal course would be for the company to be neutral as an acceptable non-punished option for both sides, while taking a side was punished by the one side and ignored by the other.
I think of Disney World. I doubt that their jumping into politics will provide a sustained and substantial number of additional visits from the favored side, while it will result in sustained alienation from customers on the other side. Business is better if both sides feel welcome to visit (neutrality).
However, today's reality is that there are many who are trying to coerce institutions to take their side and threatening to punish neutrality as immoral or betrayal.
Often this is coming from employees rather than customers.
This is where I feel a lot of ambivalence. At one level, I think that employees trying to get their employer to manifest their own values is a very legitimate bottom-up democratic force. On the other side, I see where that approach leads and don't like it (no matter which side said employees are on). I may not resolve this internal conflict soon.