6 ms·

> Fascinating to see such clear ramifications of allowing religious beliefs to creep into the outcome of successful product expansion. Dicks sporting goods rec

by mrrrgn 7y ago

> Fascinating to see such clear ramifications of allowing religious beliefs to creep into the outcome of successful product expansion. Dicks sporting goods recently took a stand against firearms that raised the ire of some of its customer base. Tons of companies go out of their way to support political messages all the time. I'd say taking moral/political positions is very much a normal tactic these days in the business world. Time will tell how it pans out, but my guess is that it isn't some sort of disaster. Most people seem apathetic to such messaging and for every person who decides to buy a chicken sandwich from Popeye's instead of Chik-fil-a in order to "fight hate" there will probably be another one or two who go out of their way to eat Chik-fil-a in order to "stick it to the man" or whatever. I'm just curious when this phenomenon started. Has it always existed? It seems like a straightforward tactic for building brand loyalty (staking out a position on some sort of lifestyle issue).

scarface74 7y ago
There is a huge moral difference between "I won't sell guns" and "I want the government to discriminate against consenting adults doing something because I personally disapprove"
- deogeo 7y ago
  Not as large a difference as you might hope. Replace "guns" with "phones with freely unlockable bootloaders", and "I" with "7/10 manufacturers" (made up statistics, but it's in the ballpark I think). If that 7/10 trends up to 10/10, then their right to control their own devices effectively disappears, even though the government didn't get in the way. I wager those who value the right to bear arms, don't want to wait until they are barely able to buy guns, at a dwindling handful of companies, before taking action.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    You’re really comparing “unlocking bootloaders” to the right for a gay couple to get married, make end of life decisions for each other as the next of kin, be on family insurance, etc? Trust me, I live in the south. If the chains don’t sell guns, there will always be some local shops that will.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      > You’re really comparing “unlocking bootloaders” to the right for a gay couple to get married... I'm making a comparison to show you don't need the government to restrict rights - a handful of corporations that control a market can do so just as well. Thinking the government is the only threat to your rights is myopic. The specific activity I chose to illustrate this is utterly besides the point. (Though it is worrying that anyone on this site would think control of your own computer is unimportant.) > Trust me, I live in the south. If the chains don’t sell guns, there will always be some local shops that will. It is precisely the passionate pro-2nd-amendment attitude (the same attitude that directed ire towards Dicks) that assures this. To repeat myself - they don't want to wait till their backs are against a wall, to start pushing back. "Don't worry, you still have N-1 computing devices not locked-down by the manufacturer. N-2. N-3. N-4..."
      - scarface74 7y ago
        The government can legally take away my property (eminent domain), my liberty by putting me in jail, they can force me to join the military, etc. Corporations have none of those powers.
        deogeo 7y ago
        None of that conflicts with what I said.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Thinking the government is the only threat to your rights is myopic. The government is the only threat to my legal rights. Not made up “rights” that a corporation won’t let me do something that I am allowed to do. What law or part of the constitution says that I have a right to an unlocked phone?
        deogeo 7y ago
        > What law or part of the constitution says that I have a right to an unlocked phone? Maybe you'll be happier if I call it an "ability", not a "right", since I am not interested in a debate on what rights are. To answer your question - none. That's what makes it so easy to lose. But do you not see the problem? Suppose all computers, not just phones, become so locked down. Your computing would be completely under the control of a handful of giant corporations - all without any legal right getting infringed. Of course I don't need hypotheticals. Lets look at another example: Before the Civil Rights act, no rights were being infringed on by segregated businesses either, and people were free to choose non-segregated businesses. The government wasn't stopping anyone - yet it was still a problem. > The government is the only threat to my legal rights. If 100% of the phones on the market automatically censored mentions of Tiananmen Square, are your legal rights still not under threat? It doesn't matter if you're able to exercise your rights, as long as you have them? The Civil Rights act doesn't cover sexual orientation, so in many states, you can still be fired for being gay. Hypothetically, if 10% of businesses refused to hire gays, would your answer still be "The government is the only threat to their legal rights"? What if it was 50%? 90%? 100%? How high would you let that % go before acting?

by mrrrgn 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago

There is a huge moral difference between "I won't sell guns" and "I want the government to discriminate against consenting adults doing something because I personally disapprove"

deogeo 7y ago
Not as large a difference as you might hope. Replace "guns" with "phones with freely unlockable bootloaders", and "I" with "7/10 manufacturers" (made up statistics, but it's in the ballpark I think). If that 7/10 trends up to 10/10, then their right to control their own devices effectively disappears, even though the government didn't get in the way. I wager those who value the right to bear arms, don't want to wait until they are barely able to buy guns, at a dwindling handful of companies, before taking action.
- scarface74 7y ago
  You’re really comparing “unlocking bootloaders” to the right for a gay couple to get married, make end of life decisions for each other as the next of kin, be on family insurance, etc? Trust me, I live in the south. If the chains don’t sell guns, there will always be some local shops that will.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > You’re really comparing “unlocking bootloaders” to the right for a gay couple to get married... I'm making a comparison to show you don't need the government to restrict rights - a handful of corporations that control a market can do so just as well. Thinking the government is the only threat to your rights is myopic. The specific activity I chose to illustrate this is utterly besides the point. (Though it is worrying that anyone on this site would think control of your own computer is unimportant.) > Trust me, I live in the south. If the chains don’t sell guns, there will always be some local shops that will. It is precisely the passionate pro-2nd-amendment attitude (the same attitude that directed ire towards Dicks) that assures this. To repeat myself - they don't want to wait till their backs are against a wall, to start pushing back. "Don't worry, you still have N-1 computing devices not locked-down by the manufacturer. N-2. N-3. N-4..."
    - scarface74 7y ago
      The government can legally take away my property (eminent domain), my liberty by putting me in jail, they can force me to join the military, etc. Corporations have none of those powers.
      - deogeo 7y ago
        None of that conflicts with what I said.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Thinking the government is the only threat to your rights is myopic. The government is the only threat to my legal rights. Not made up “rights” that a corporation won’t let me do something that I am allowed to do. What law or part of the constitution says that I have a right to an unlocked phone?
        deogeo 7y ago
        > What law or part of the constitution says that I have a right to an unlocked phone? Maybe you'll be happier if I call it an "ability", not a "right", since I am not interested in a debate on what rights are. To answer your question - none. That's what makes it so easy to lose. But do you not see the problem? Suppose all computers, not just phones, become so locked down. Your computing would be completely under the control of a handful of giant corporations - all without any legal right getting infringed. Of course I don't need hypotheticals. Lets look at another example: Before the Civil Rights act, no rights were being infringed on by segregated businesses either, and people were free to choose non-segregated businesses. The government wasn't stopping anyone - yet it was still a problem. > The government is the only threat to my legal rights. If 100% of the phones on the market automatically censored mentions of Tiananmen Square, are your legal rights still not under threat? It doesn't matter if you're able to exercise your rights, as long as you have them? The Civil Rights act doesn't cover sexual orientation, so in many states, you can still be fired for being gay. Hypothetically, if 10% of businesses refused to hire gays, would your answer still be "The government is the only threat to their legal rights"? What if it was 50%? 90%? 100%? How high would you let that % go before acting?