> "Patagonia said it began boycotting Facebook platforms 16 months ago because of its claims that the social network spreads hate speech and misinformation abou

> "Patagonia said it began boycotting Facebook platforms 16 months ago because of its claims that the social network spreads hate speech and misinformation about climate change and politics. Mr. Gellert said the company would continue to withhold its advertising until Facebook makes sure its products can mitigate harm." Perhaps I'm a cynic, but this reads like 'mood affiliation' and a brand play to me. I doubt Mr. Gellert and Patagonia have a well-thought out perspective on hate speech/misinformation (if they do, please point me to it) and the complexities of even judging what it is and the myriad of considerations for whether/how to manage it. If I were to predict the 'socially conscious' positions they will take, I would guess it will align with those of their customers: higher socioeconomic status, urban, democrat-voting (but not necessarily liberal), college-educated, and mostly white people. At the end of the day, they are a for-profit company, and want to remain attractive to their core customer base. The "people over profits" bit is kind of rich, in my opinion. Given that Patagonia products have huge markups and are inaccessible to middle and lower class people due to their price. A big part of their brand is about a social status signal from wearing an upmarket brand. They depend on conspicuous consumption. I say all this even as a Patagonia customer. I do like their products, but the proselytizing about issues without humility on how they themselves operate and the lack of consideration for the complexities of issues, is all a bit much.