It's very sad, and very telling that our biggest corporations have become suckups to the reactionary side of the right wing and continue to carry the water for the most degenerate and attention-seeking members of said right wing.

None of these nutcases offer true help to society (note: neither do the extreme leftists, just so we're clear that I'm not team red or team blue), and it does no good that our corporations are actively picking a side.

▲

everdrive 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The extreme flip-flopping of the major tech companies provides a few small possibilities that don't paint a good picture no matter how you look at it:

- They never believed in progressive causes, and were just siding with what they believed was the social majority. (and so when they perceive the social majority has changed, they immediately follow and would follow _any_ social majority.)

- They don't agree with the current anti-progressive social movement (ie, they still hold their old beliefs) but none of them have any backbone whatsoever, and are getting in line with virtually no resistance or fight.

- All the tech company CEOs just happened to be radicalized at the exact same time.

I'm sure that #1 is the most reasonable answer, although perhaps there's a dash of #3 in there. In any case, you'd have to question whether a party-in-power (from a social movement perspective) wouldn't just encourage this trend when _they_ were the ones winning.

	▲	phba 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Option four: It is all part of a deliberate strategy. The principles of propaganda are well established. Edward Bernays clearly described how to plant ideas and influence public opinion a hundred years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book)). The only thing that has changed is the speed and intensity of communication.
	▲	guelo 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I think a lot of it has to do with the loss of labor power among the tech workforce. For example Google employees used to cause a ruckus when execs sold to militaries, now everyone stays quiet because they're afraid to lose their jobs and execs are emboldened to make an example of anyone that causes trouble.
	▲	2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	graemep 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Its obviously the first. They always had different standards in different countries and in different circumstances. FB has been showing lots of dog-whistle racism, occasionally even outright overt racism for many years. The one occasion on which reported a blatantly racist comment they said it was not against "community standards". They want money, and they want engagement, and they want governments to remove competition.

▲

jerrygenser 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Corporations are picking the side that's in power. If team blue is in power they would pick blue. Corporations are (usually) not moral or inherently politically motivated other than to the extent of optimizing short term shareholder value.

	▲	A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		You are being reflexively downvoted, but I am not certain as to why. The assessment strikes me as accurate. Few corps I worked for were willing to go on a limb 'for a cause'. The exceptions were smaller companies where owner had a much bigger say and could effectively align goals with their beliefs.