>Yes, in other words one kind of activism is considered worse (or less 'neutral') than others. You could also say that one kind of activism is considered more

>Yes, in other words one kind of activism is considered worse (or less 'neutral') than others. You could also say that one kind of activism is considered more PR friendly. It's obvious that a company lobbying for lower taxes is directly beneficial only to that company, and that's why we don't hear about it. The problem I think a lot of people (myself included) have with the more obviously "social" corporate activism that the article describes is that it feels extremely fake, and corporations are only doing it to make themselves look good. In 2017, Coca Cola put out a commercial[1] that depicted a heated kerfuffle between protesters and police. Then a celebrity walked onto the scene and handed some people a nice cold can of coke, and everyone started smiling and relaxing like the problems that brought them to that point were solved. Everyone rightly hated it, and it was pulled. How is anyone supposed to believe that that any of their activism isn't just a form of PR? When I see CEOs of gigantic corporations (including coke) go on TV to talk about how some new legislation is going to hurt the little guy, I can only roll my eyes and wonder how anyone in their right mind can believe them, or why they are being given a chance to speak on the matter in the first place. I believe the most beneficial thing a company as big as coke could do to help anything would be to pay their fair share of taxes, and that any form of activism they engage in is a distraction from the fact that they will never willingly do that. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/pepsi-ad-kendall-jenner-echoes-black-lives-matter-sparks-anger-n742811 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/pepsi-ad-kendall-jenner-... edit: s/coke/pepsi/g, which I will leave because just lol what a dumb mistake