“If you’ve ever hosted a potluck and none of the guests were spouting antisemitic and/or authoritarian talking points, congratulations! You’ve achieved what some of the most valuable companies in the world claim is impossible.”

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    They claim it’s impossible because they don’t want to lose market share.

    They didn’t start treating women, black people, LGBT people, the disabled, and countless other minorities as human beings because they thought all human life has intrinsic value, they started treating them like humans because they realized they were leaving money on the table. They realized their profits could be even bigger if they hired people from these groups and aimed advertising at them, they could have everyone’s money, not just white people’s money.

    Now that the real “silent majority” aren’t a bunch of backwards fucking racists, companies try to act like they give a shit about various minority groups while really only caring to get the profits they can extract from those communities.

    They understand that when they lose customers, those customers turn to other services to spend their money, with right wingers and white supremacists and authoritarians, that’s running off to places like TruthSocial and Xitter.

    This is the same thing, they don’t value the lives of white supremacists, they value the money in their pockets, and as long as those people have money to spend, they will find excuses to keep taking their money.

    The Fediverse easily sidesteps this problem by being volunteer and donation-based, meaning nobody is currently using it to sell to the biggest markets available.

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      The CEO of the company I used to work, used to say every time they talked about the inclusivity initiatives that they were not doing them because it was the moral thing to do, but because it was the thing that brings more returns to the company. Always found rare that he was so honest with that.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Yep, it’s really as simple as “Why have a handful of markets, when we can have all the markets.” It’s so odd how it’s a combination of abject greed and total disdain for things like inclusivity, but they back it because money.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        In general they are the same thing. In the broadest terms, what’s seen as moral is what society as a whole approves. By definition, some are early adopters and some are late adopters.