5 ms·

Right. Where does boycotting Sony come into that? Do you think there’s no value in a positive action unless the person doing it also did some other, unrelated

Right. Where does boycotting Sony come into that? Do you think there’s no value in a positive action unless the person doing it also did some other, unrelated positive action? Why? I think you’re just playing gotcha.

lmm 5y ago
I think if Lenovo's CEO can tell the board "look, we can see x% of customers are anti-rootkitting and avoid companies that use rootkits, therefore we want to switch away from rootkits" that's going to be a lot more effective than "some guys are boycotting us; they say it's about the rootkits but really who knows".
- playpause 5y ago
  You think that a Lenovo CEO will be completely unconcerned with a boycott of Lenovo products… because their competitors aren’t also being boycotted? Or just less concerned? If you mean just “less concerned”, then even then, that means the boycott still has some value, right? So what is wrong with someone just boycotting one of two “bad” companies? Just to transpose the logic to a different situation: say if someone gives $10 to a charity fundraiser, but they actually had $20 in their wallet, does that make their $10 donation less valuable? If this is not a fair comparison, please help me understand exactly what the relevant difference is.
  - lmm 5y ago
    > You think that a Lenovo CEO will be completely unconcerned with a boycott of Lenovo products… because their competitors aren’t also being boycotted? Or just less concerned? I mean unlikely to take the actions you're trying to push for. If you're not consistent about when to boycott a company, how can they trust you to be consistent about when to stop boycotting a company?
    - playpause 5y ago
      So, completely unconcerned, or just less concerned? Which?
      - lmm 5y ago
        Overwhelmingly less likely to take the desired actions. I wouldn't presume to judge the difference between say 0.1% as likely and not at all likely.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        > ...the difference between say 0.1% as likely and not at all likely. Heh, to think that this sub-thread began with someone (you? Can't recall) complaining about "arbitrary" boycotting... That's a mighty arbitrary number you've got there. What's to say the difference isn't actually between 80% and 99%?
        lmm 5y ago
        I'm definitely claiming an arbitrary boycott is less than 20% as effective as a clearly principled one. I'm agnostic about whether an arbitrary boycott is completely 100% ineffective or a teeny tiny smidgen effective and I don't think that's a meaningful distinction to draw.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        I think your premise is horrendously flawed. How would most sellers even know whether people are boycotting them "arbitrarily" or not?!? 1) A boycott is a boycott; they only notice that people are boycotting them. 2) ALL boycotts are "arbitrary" in the sense that [almost no | few | some | many | most | almost all] people participate in them, for reasons of their own. 3) ALL boycotts are "clearly principled" in the sense that the people participating in them are doing it because of some principle that's important to them. 4) Seller A can't know -- and probably doesn't give a shit about -- whether each of the participants in the boycott is also boycotting sellers B, C, D, E, F, etc, which perhaps they ought to also boycott on the same grounds they're boycotting seller A. 5) As I already mentioned, some of the people boycotting seller A are probably also boycotting sellers B and C even though they can't be bothered to boycott D, E and F; some others boycott A, D and E although not B, C and F; some A, C, and F; etc etc. For every boycott, you'll find people who also for the same principled reasons boycott other sellers. Lots of arbitrary decisions make a random distribution; it all evens out. And the numbers (or number-adjacent adjectives) you keep throwing around, apparently in an effort to lend your totally subjective opinion some air of scientific legitimacy, are still totally arbitrary, or to call them what they are: pulled straight out of your nether orifice. How do you KNOW that "an arbitrary boycott is less than 20% as effective as a clearly principled one"??? What data do you have to claim the question is "whether an arbitrary boycott is completely 100% ineffective or a teeny tiny smidgen effective", when it could just as well be whether it is -- to pull equally random numbers out of my own arse -- 90% effective or only 60%? Sure, that might not be "a meaningful distinction to draw", either: Both are pretty fucking bad for the seller. So... Sorry, but to me your whole screed still feels just as arbitrary and unreasoned as you accuse those partial boycotters of being.

lmm 5y ago

I think if Lenovo's CEO can tell the board "look, we can see x% of customers are anti-rootkitting and avoid companies that use rootkits, therefore we want to switch away from rootkits" that's going to be a lot more effective than "some guys are boycotting us; they say it's about the rootkits but really who knows".

playpause 5y ago
You think that a Lenovo CEO will be completely unconcerned with a boycott of Lenovo products… because their competitors aren’t also being boycotted? Or just less concerned? If you mean just “less concerned”, then even then, that means the boycott still has some value, right? So what is wrong with someone just boycotting one of two “bad” companies? Just to transpose the logic to a different situation: say if someone gives $10 to a charity fundraiser, but they actually had $20 in their wallet, does that make their $10 donation less valuable? If this is not a fair comparison, please help me understand exactly what the relevant difference is.
- lmm 5y ago
  > You think that a Lenovo CEO will be completely unconcerned with a boycott of Lenovo products… because their competitors aren’t also being boycotted? Or just less concerned? I mean unlikely to take the actions you're trying to push for. If you're not consistent about when to boycott a company, how can they trust you to be consistent about when to stop boycotting a company?
  - playpause 5y ago
    So, completely unconcerned, or just less concerned? Which?
    - lmm 5y ago
      Overwhelmingly less likely to take the desired actions. I wouldn't presume to judge the difference between say 0.1% as likely and not at all likely.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > ...the difference between say 0.1% as likely and not at all likely. Heh, to think that this sub-thread began with someone (you? Can't recall) complaining about "arbitrary" boycotting... That's a mighty arbitrary number you've got there. What's to say the difference isn't actually between 80% and 99%?
        lmm 5y ago
        I'm definitely claiming an arbitrary boycott is less than 20% as effective as a clearly principled one. I'm agnostic about whether an arbitrary boycott is completely 100% ineffective or a teeny tiny smidgen effective and I don't think that's a meaningful distinction to draw.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        I think your premise is horrendously flawed. How would most sellers even know whether people are boycotting them "arbitrarily" or not?!? 1) A boycott is a boycott; they only notice that people are boycotting them. 2) ALL boycotts are "arbitrary" in the sense that [almost no | few | some | many | most | almost all] people participate in them, for reasons of their own. 3) ALL boycotts are "clearly principled" in the sense that the people participating in them are doing it because of some principle that's important to them. 4) Seller A can't know -- and probably doesn't give a shit about -- whether each of the participants in the boycott is also boycotting sellers B, C, D, E, F, etc, which perhaps they ought to also boycott on the same grounds they're boycotting seller A. 5) As I already mentioned, some of the people boycotting seller A are probably also boycotting sellers B and C even though they can't be bothered to boycott D, E and F; some others boycott A, D and E although not B, C and F; some A, C, and F; etc etc. For every boycott, you'll find people who also for the same principled reasons boycott other sellers. Lots of arbitrary decisions make a random distribution; it all evens out. And the numbers (or number-adjacent adjectives) you keep throwing around, apparently in an effort to lend your totally subjective opinion some air of scientific legitimacy, are still totally arbitrary, or to call them what they are: pulled straight out of your nether orifice. How do you KNOW that "an arbitrary boycott is less than 20% as effective as a clearly principled one"??? What data do you have to claim the question is "whether an arbitrary boycott is completely 100% ineffective or a teeny tiny smidgen effective", when it could just as well be whether it is -- to pull equally random numbers out of my own arse -- 90% effective or only 60%? Sure, that might not be "a meaningful distinction to draw", either: Both are pretty fucking bad for the seller. So... Sorry, but to me your whole screed still feels just as arbitrary and unreasoned as you accuse those partial boycotters of being.