4 ms·

> I am trying to think of the downsides, i.e. how will this come to bite us in the butt... The right has discovered social media. If you start brigading right-

> I am trying to think of the downsides, i.e. how will this come to bite us in the butt... The right has discovered social media. If you start brigading right-wing sites by going after their advertisers, they're going to start doing the same thing to you. What's more, as the recent election showed, the right's brigading ability is far greater than the left's at the moment. What do you think would happen if Milo Yiannopoulos were to post the contact information for advertiser at Vox.com and the Huffington Post and tell his followers to demand that they pull their ads? I'd be willing to bet a good deal of money that it would be more impactful than an opinion piece in the NY Times.

rgejman 10y ago
I'm not sure this is true. Big companies tend to have more liberal politics because (a) it helps them retain talent (e.g. LGBT employees) and (b) liberal politics tends to be less offensive to population sub-groups. Do you really think advertisers would pull their funding from Vox or HuffPo absent very offensive headlines like the ones on Breitbart?
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  > Big companies tend to have more liberal politics because (a) it helps them retain talent (e.g. LGBT employees) and (b) liberal politics tends to be less offensive to population sub-groups. I'm not even a conservative, and my choice of employers is drastically limited by politics. I won't work in California, New York, Maryland, Illinois, or several other states because of their gun laws. I know I'm not alone in that. The talent pool for companies with liberal politics is artificially limited by the liberal states where they are located. There is an echo chamber effect at play that the left seems to be completely blind to. Likewise, I see no evidence that liberal politics are less offensive to population sub-groups across the country. In major cities, sure, but that's only around half of the country's population. I also suspect that you're conflating inclusivity with liberalism. Yes, LGBT issues have been a liberal cause, but the resistance to that is waning very quickly. To most people outside of the major cities, "liberalism" means "higher taxes", "anti-business", "welfare", "pro-union", and "anti-gun". Each of those alienates a substantial part of the country. > Do you really think advertisers would pull their funding from Vox or HuffPo absent very offensive headlines like the ones on Breitbart? You may not find HuffPo or Vox offensive, but the right absolutely does. Consider things like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fox-news-eye-for-an-eye_us_56a9790fe4b0016489225a54 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fox-news-ey... > Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. In short, there is a culture war in full swing in the US. The left has been winning that war for a long time, but they're not recognizing the rise of real resistance to their agenda. That's in large part because it doesn't look like what we're used to seeing as a movement.

rgejman 10y ago

I'm not sure this is true. Big companies tend to have more liberal politics because (a) it helps them retain talent (e.g. LGBT employees) and (b) liberal politics tends to be less offensive to population sub-groups. Do you really think advertisers would pull their funding from Vox or HuffPo absent very offensive headlines like the ones on Breitbart?

LyndsySimon 10y ago
> Big companies tend to have more liberal politics because (a) it helps them retain talent (e.g. LGBT employees) and (b) liberal politics tends to be less offensive to population sub-groups. I'm not even a conservative, and my choice of employers is drastically limited by politics. I won't work in California, New York, Maryland, Illinois, or several other states because of their gun laws. I know I'm not alone in that. The talent pool for companies with liberal politics is artificially limited by the liberal states where they are located. There is an echo chamber effect at play that the left seems to be completely blind to. Likewise, I see no evidence that liberal politics are less offensive to population sub-groups across the country. In major cities, sure, but that's only around half of the country's population. I also suspect that you're conflating inclusivity with liberalism. Yes, LGBT issues have been a liberal cause, but the resistance to that is waning very quickly. To most people outside of the major cities, "liberalism" means "higher taxes", "anti-business", "welfare", "pro-union", and "anti-gun". Each of those alienates a substantial part of the country. > Do you really think advertisers would pull their funding from Vox or HuffPo absent very offensive headlines like the ones on Breitbart? You may not find HuffPo or Vox offensive, but the right absolutely does. Consider things like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fox-news-eye-for-an-eye_us_56a9790fe4b0016489225a54 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fox-news-ey... > Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. In short, there is a culture war in full swing in the US. The left has been winning that war for a long time, but they're not recognizing the rise of real resistance to their agenda. That's in large part because it doesn't look like what we're used to seeing as a movement.