The upvotes I couldn't care less about lol. I just used it to show that others appear to recognize what I'm saying. It did open me up to being a "polling data farming agitator" I guess, on a niche platform to boot, but 🤷
But "no ethical consumption under capitalism" helps me more than it helps you. That phrase exists to say systemic complicity shouldn't paralyze people into doing nothing, not that individual and collective choices carry zero weight. If choices genuinely didn't matter, boycotts wouldn't be a thing worth having opinions about, companies wouldn't spend money on PR to avoid them, and states wouldn't pass anti-BDS legislation to head them off. Discord rolled back their verification push after backlash. They added the credit card mechanism because of it too, their words, not mine. Public pressure, people being active, brought a material outcome that wouldn't have happened otherwise. You and I wouldn't be conversing if people didn't give a shit because there's no ethical consumption and, according to you, it therefore wouldn't matter.
So which is it? Either collective consumer/user pressure can move outcomes, in which case individual participation isn't irrelevant and the mechanism I described (aware, unaffected, therefore inactive) is worth naming when you see it. Or it can't, in which case the Discord rollback you'd have to explain away didn't happen for the reason it obviously did.
Naming the mechanism doesn't mean every instance of it carries equal weight, and I take the point that reaching for the heaviest possible comparison isn't necessary to make it. But dismissing the mechanism itself with "no ethical consumption, so nothing you do matters" is just a thought-terminating cliche being used exactly backwards.