• the_q@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anyone who supports a company knowing how they conduct their business causes harm etc, is complicit. Once that information is learned a choice has to be made.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That only works if there’s meaningful competition. With megabrands like Nestle who make 1/4 of the grocery store, or game publishers like Ubisoft who receive 1/4 of the industry’s revenue any kind of boycott is dead before it begins.

      In a society with a functioning government, megabrands who abuse their neighbors and/or customers would be hit with significant fines and be heavily regulated out of the bad behaviors, but the US hadn’t had a government interested in helping the common person for over half a century

    • Jyek@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t disagree. I disagree with the idea that it’s 90% the fault of the consumer.

        • Jyek@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The consumer is 90% to blame for the actions of an international corporation who have analyzed and manipulated their target demographic? If it were a relationship you’d be victim blaming. If I hit you for being stupid, is it your fault because you were stupid or is it my fault for thinking hitting you was a solution?