News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
My own take is that if you have a boycott, to have political impact, it needs to have concrete goals and agreed-upon-in-advance, well-defined termination conditions.
Without that, you're flailing around angrily. Doesn't actually do anything, since it's not as if any one party can do anything you want that has an effect in response.
I'd also add that the broader a boycott, the harder it is to do, and the more-diffuse the effect. If you don't buy anything, you're affecting all sorts of people. Many of those have no impact on your particular concerns.
If I were going to participate in a boycott:
It would not have termination condition defined by time, but in achieving political goals. Defining a termination in time specifically says "I'm not going to have an effect after this point", which encourages ignoring the boycott, and and not having concrete political goals says "nothing you do for me is going to affect what I do anyway", which also encourages ignoring the boycott.
Those goals would be achievable, concrete, and announced in advance.
It would identify specific parties who have the authority to produce the change I want and target those.
It would be limited in scope to try to affect specifically the parties who I want to act differently. Anything else, and you're expending will-to-act on impacting others and also antagonizing people whose actions you don't care about.
EDIT: What would I consider to be a more-effective boycott? The article says that one thing that people are upset about is Target rolling back DEI policy. Okay. Say "we will boycott Target until it reinstates the DEI policy that existed prior to Date X" (or, hell, adopts some other policy, whatever). That is something that Target management can very clearly institute. It has concrete political goals. It does not announce in advance that it is going to terminate at a given time. It is not impacting other parties who have nothing to do with whatever someone is upset about. The impact of the boycott is focused on the party in question.
Then repeat that with other parties if you have other things you want to accomplish.
That's also sustainable. It is very likely that you can keep doing that for a sustained period of time, because Target probably doesn't have a monopoly as a provider of household goods. There, a boycotter actually has leverage. Trying to boycott...everything...is trying to start a fight with everyone. You can get something from a different store than Target for a lot longer than you can not get anything at all.
I think that just saying "I'm going to not buy anything from anyone for a day because I'm unhappy about various undefined things" is probably not going to accomplish a lot other than maybe letting people work off a little steam. I don't expect that it will result in change.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Every vote counts.
There is value in just using something like this to break spending habits of the population.
A lot of people may find that a portion of their spending wasn’t that necessary after all, and will stop beyond the boycott. The businesses will need to improve services or lower prices to win customers back.
At least, that’s what I hope this achieves. The organizers might have varying goals.