4 ms·

I find it scary that so many companies are asserting their political will so aggressively. I don't think this will end well.

bastawhiz 6y ago
Can you elaborate on that? What about this story is scary to you?
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  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?"
  - cryptoz 6y ago
    > 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.
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      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.)
tchaffee 6y ago
It is far more transparent than the companies that donate literally hundreds of millions of dollars in total to political campaigns.
cryptoz 6y ago
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.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  find it terrifying how few companies dare to take a stand on a topic. It's refreshing to see morals enter business. In an abstract sense this is no different than a company deciding not to do business with a certain race. It just so happens this time that you agree with it. But next time you might not and by then the precedent has been set.
  - dang 6y ago
    It's obviously different from "deciding not to do business with a certain race". Would you please stop posting flamebait to HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rconti 6y ago
This is "letting the market decide".
beart 6y ago
Companies have been asserting their political will quite aggressively for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lobbying_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lobbying_in_the_Uni...

bastawhiz 6y ago

Can you elaborate on that? What about this story is scary to you?

fennecfoxen 6y ago
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?"
- cryptoz 6y ago
  > 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.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    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.)

tchaffee 6y ago

It is far more transparent than the companies that donate literally hundreds of millions of dollars in total to political campaigns.

cryptoz 6y ago

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.

goatinaboat 6y ago
find it terrifying how few companies dare to take a stand on a topic. It's refreshing to see morals enter business. In an abstract sense this is no different than a company deciding not to do business with a certain race. It just so happens this time that you agree with it. But next time you might not and by then the precedent has been set.
- dang 6y ago
  It's obviously different from "deciding not to do business with a certain race". Would you please stop posting flamebait to HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rconti 6y ago

This is "letting the market decide".

beart 6y ago

Companies have been asserting their political will quite aggressively for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lobbying_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lobbying_in_the_Uni...