!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
If it's a company selling a product an effective boycott of 30% or more of their customers would work under extended period's of time.
For military you have to go to war against them. You don't ask Israel to stop killing you. You pull out the uno reverse
They work if they're organized, well-informed and well-planned.
They don't work if they're reliant on petitions, mixed messages and no structure.
When enough people care collectively yeah. Rare.
Canadians vs Heinz Ketchup in the past and I think that one has stuck around somewhat to present day.
Canadians again vs American booze in response to 51st state threats. Yesterday's headlines were about a continued drop in sales, down 85% this year so far.
Travel is down too. Not enough in my opinion, but enough that a few states are whining about it including Newsom in California. Fuck the USA.
Usually no though.
Like do they actually, reliably effect change in the way the activists intend?
Have they worked against Israel? Did they work against Apartheid South Africa? Could they work against Trump’s America?
My hunch is that they don’t, really, but can be a useful promotional tool for other issues. Like don’t buy American is a simple message. >If people will listen to that, they may listen to reasons why, which maybe could build a movement.
But on the whole I am very sceptical, and would be interested in any reasons for or against boycotts.
Try to look at it the other way around: Every single one of your actions shapes the world around you and thus is a vote for how you want the word to be. By the very act of visiting a country you declare that country to be worth visiting, by purchasing a product you endorse it, by using a service you support the continued existence of that service and all things connected to it.
Now why wouldn't the reverse be true?
Disney allegedly lost 1.7 million customers after suspending Jimmy Kimmel. He was very quickly reinstated.
It's not that boycotts don't work, it's more that they require a critical mass to work and that can be hard to achieve.
And most of them patted themselves on the shoulders and reactivated their accounts.
edit: Holy shit disney just killed hulu.
What people boycott matters. So many products/services are effectively monopolized that only things people are willing to actually go without can effectively be boycotted.
It worked with Jimmy Kimmel because there's neither a substitute entertainer that will satisfy cancelers nor is there an alternate disney owned streaming service -which didn't remove kimmel- they can funnel said canceler's to.
https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/
Also because Colbert previously was cancelled and that was already upsetting to many people. If Colbert wasn't cancelled already We might not have seen enough people care when Kimmel was suspended
In case of a country at war you need a lot more than a boycott.
Boycotts just brought back * Jimmy Kimmel like 2 weeks ago.
BDS worked on South Africa, but it was a pariah state at the national level in most of the world. You have to get your taxes to stop going to Israel for that to work tbh.
Doesn't mean I don't participate. What little we can do does a little, and is worth doing.
Boycotts in general do work, absolutely. But it has to be a near-complete boycott, e.g. 90+% participation. Just a few will never work.
It doesn't take anywhere close to 90%. Disney lost 1.3% of their subscribers before reversing their decision on Kimmel.
The key is getting media attention that survives one 24h cycle.
Exactly. It doesn't need to be all, or even most. Just enough to make them unprofitable for long enough to where they panic. That seems a much lower bar and easier to meet.
The last time there was a general strike in the USA that generated real change... it took just 11 million people... about 10% of the working age at the time. These days, you could do it with a few choice professions... air traffic control, truckers, dock workers... the people that move the people and the goods would cripple the country in a week, maybe 2.
It can work, the impact increases the more support it has.
If BDS didn't work, it wouldn't be illegal to promote BDS for Israel...
Like any kind of protest or political action they work often enough to get push back from those in power but are not a guarantee. Their scope also needs to be proportional to what they are boycotting, so the larger the company or political power the more coordination and number of people it takes to get results.
Last year there was a boycott of Sabra, which makes hummus, that successfully changed the ownership from half Pepsi Co and an Israeli company to get the Israeli company to divest. It had a clear goal and a single type of product that was easy for people to understand and get behind the boycott. If someone wanted to boycott Pepsi Co, which not only makes soda but also owns a ton of restaurants and other things, it would be extremely difficult as they could weather the losses in one area due to the scope of the company as a whole.
The Montgomery bus boycott during the US Civil Rights era was extremely successful.
It works, albeit imperfectly. In particular, it’s sometimes a difficult prospect for would-be participants who don’t have the luxury of choice. Also attention/bandwidth can limit participation since no one can sustain an endless game of whack-a-mole. Ultimately, it’s just one of many tools, but it has often been effective.
There's VERY few services that the luxury of choice is not again for. A lot of the times that's simply an excuse
Maybe yeah, I’m just talking about poor folks in rural areas who can’t boycott the only walmart or whatever.
Maybe a better example is Amazon. I have a rough idea how much it costs me to avoid that company and I know it might not be an easy option for someone on tighter margins.
Know what works better than boycotts? A general strike. Stop the economy in its tracks. Have a clear, articulated goal. No leadership. No one to arrest. No one to identify as a troublemaker.
The trouble, when systemic, is the system. A boycott is meant to strike at an individual or group of allied organization(s). A general strike is the last level.
Governments tend to be allergic to general strikes. Their reactions are heavy-handed, thoughtless, and reactionary. Howard Zinn recounts several in A People's History of the United States. But, when primed and done well, it is a demonstration of political will unlike any other. It is a change agent.
I was in Guatemala in 2015 for the one-day general strike that led to the arrest of then-President Otto Perez Molina. His party had been funnelling tax revenues into a slush fund. Look up #noletoca and #LaLinea. He was removed from the presidency, tried, convicted, and served time.
Depends. If a significant chunk of your userbase starts to leave you will have to rethink sooner rather than later.
Well, back in the day they successfully ousted Mr. Boycott by boycotting him. So at least the first boycott successfully worked.
Hey, this is pretty cool info. Thanks for that!
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they are a useful promotional tool for the cause. Sometimes they don't work at all. How do you know which will be which? You don't.
Every person who supports a boycott very slightly improves its effectiveness, either directly or to create more awareness of the cause.
Avoid black-or-white thinking. it does not have to "win" to be part of a change, it only has to have the chance for change or contribute to change, and we won't know how much of a contribution it made, if any at all, until and unless the change eventually happens. It may be the butterfly flapping its wings that causes a hurricane, or it may be a butterfly flapping its wings that does absolutely nothing at all. Either way, let the butterfly flap its wings first, and then we'll see what happens. It is neither guaranteed to succeed, nor guaranteed to fail. That's the kind of black-or-white thinking you need to avoid. We don't live in a world of certainty, the world is a complex place full of uncertainty. We try because there's a chance, not because it's guaranteed, and the chance to make a change is the worthwhile part you should be pursuing. Seeking absolute certainty from future events is a form of self-sabotage.
This isn't a binary answer since it depends on the target and how many people are actually doing it.
For example Disney+ boycott worked since an actual lot of people participated in it, it's also easy to cancel a subscription, but on the other side, Hogwarts Legacy's boycott didn't do shit because almost no one cares that much about sending a message, and there was no substitute for the fantasy of living a virtual life in a magic school, yet.
While politics boycott need a large enough mass of people to accomplish anything, and this my may ruffles some feather but, violence is often needed just like what happened in Nepal.
Unequivocally yes, but not always. You need a coordinated media campaign, a potent symbol, a dedicated core of supporters and the right combo of circumstances.
The Indian Independence movement depended in large part on boycotts. Ghandi’s followers wove their own cloth and wore traditional dhoti, both as a boycott of British cloth and as a public symbol of solidarity.
My favorite was the Salt March, wherein Ghandi used the general unfocused removediness around new salt taxes to make a media spectacle and demonstrate that Indians didn’t need British salt. Or anything British at all.
He marched down to the beach over a period of days gathering followers and media attention. Then he stood in the water and made salt in his bare hands using seawater and the bright hot sunshine.
18 years later they won their independence in a relatively bloodless way.
As an example Salt March
Doesn't mstter we have to do what is right
For me it sorta does not matter. When I boycott usually the thing disgusts me and any revenue less for them and more for their competitors especially in regards to how I act (consume) is important to me. Because its my actions. Like there is a lot of indication that the plastic recycling I do likely does not get recycled, but im still going to stubbornly do it. If I was in europe I would totally do the buy european. Will it change what trump is doing, unlikely, but it will help europe gdp over us.
Boycotts, yes.
"I was on the fence about buying this and I want to sound engaged on the Internet, may still get it later" voting-with-your-wallet nonsense? No.
No, only thing I've found that works is affecting the public image. Public image is critical because once the public opinion changes, the issue gets so much pressure building up. It's an affect of digital age. It's really underutilized. Boycott doesn't work because these entities have more than one way to handle that. What they haven't figured out is bad PR in a digital world.
This is the Achilles heel of so many of these people. They're rich, powerful, can withstand almost anything. But the one thing they can't always have is control over public opinion and that kills so many of them. But we seem to ignore how effective it is.
I don't think you can effectively boycott whole countries if you aren't doing so on a country level.
Consumer level boycotts against companies on the other hand seem to work very well.
I wish there was momentum to boycott US tech companies
Ouch. AMD and Intel are both US based. Intel was easy enough, but I'd have to do a lot of soul searching and research to give up AMD, their graphics cards and the x86 architecture.
And this is from someone in Britain, where ARM - probably the next best alternative - is based. (As in located, not the new sense of based. Though they might actually be that too.)
Yeah, I was think there is easier momentum for non-hardware tech. Social media is mostly its users so if they leave there isn't much. Disney showed some of the weaknesses of streaming services but they're aren't many non-US alternatives. There are YouTube alternatives but there most of the content creators are entrenched there. Most of the rest of Google's offerings have European alternatives.
Yes