this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2025

661 points (98.4% liked)

News

37090 readers

2294 users here now

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.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

661

20% of Americans support boycott of firms aligning themselves with Trump agenda (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

A Harris Poll revealed that 20% of Americans support boycotting companies aligning with Trump’s agenda, including major brands like Amazon, Target, and Tesla.

Boycotts are driven by dissatisfaction with companies rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, with 46% citing DEI rollbacks as a reason.

Support for boycotts is stronger among younger, non-white, and Democratic demographics. Some boycotts, like the “Latino Freeze Movement” and religiously motivated Target boycotts, are coordinated within communities.

Companies cite legal pressures for DEI changes, while critics view it as a moral compromise.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AbnormalHumanBeing@lemmy.abnormalbeings.space 54 points 1 year ago

Right? I thought that looked like some serious ideological, "but hurting business is too far!"-brainrot.

But the article is actually really confusing to me:

One in five Americans plan to turn their backs for good on companies that have shifted their policies to align with Donald Trump’s agenda, according to a new poll for the Guardian.

That means ~20% plan to boycott themselves, which is not necessarily the same as supporting a boycott. Participating != supporting. Not supporting would e.g. also potentially mean attacking people like the person with the sign in the article photo, or ruining a Thanksgiving dinner with a huge family argument. While supporting can also mean "I support the movement, but for this and that reason, don't participate myself" (that may be due to genuine dependence on some boycotted things, or just lack of motivation, or a feeling of not knowing how to, etc.).

Then the article goes on with a quote:

When 20% of Americans are permanently changing their consumption habits and nearly a third of boycotters say they’ll hold out indefinitely, convenience may no longer be the decisive factor companies think it is.

Again, that seems like 20% are actively boycotting, which is actually a pretty big number for a movement like that.

But then, there is another conflicting number just one paragraph away:

When asked about the boycotts that have been making headlines over the last few weeks, 36% of Americans said they are or will be participating.

So, wait, what? Why are the numbers so significantly different?

Last month, a Harris poll found that 31% of Americans have reported similar goals to “opt out” of the economy this year in light of the changing political climate.

Wait, that is yet another number, where are the 20% coming from even?

Also, I swear, maybe I am imagining it, but I think the article changed while I was typing this, because I remember wanting to structure an argument around them later using the "support" wording again, but now I can't find it any more. Maybe I was misreading, that happens to me at times, but it wouldn't be the first time a news outlet has changed an article while it was already live without a notice.

To anyone not wanting to click, here is the neat graphic with some more demographic info from the article: