this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
800 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
86012 readers
3848 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are you contending unless otherwise specified, people should be mandated to continue spending money with companies?
I'm allowed to do business or not do business with any company for any reason I like. Cofounder funding a political party with one of their goals being to brutalize immigrants? No thanks. Contractor wearing a company shirt was rude to me on the elevator? I'll check the competition. Maybe I just don't like the color of their logo?
I'm allowed to define my morals and what I would consider violating those morals would be with monetary support and no half baked slippery slope argument is going to change that.
What exactly is the allowed reasons for doing or not doing business with people?
No. I'm just of the opinion that I'm in no way obliged to disclose to you what I spend my money on, just because I work somewhere you spend money on.
Anything, including having no reason at all, obviously.
The co-founder publicly stated he made the donation on social media. What made him obliged to disclose this? He seems rather proud of it, in fact.
As a result, people feel they may have a moral obligation to not funnel money to him. Your stance also doesn;t really line up with your examples like
You don't mention the specific problem you have with this, which would be mandated disclosure. By your own words, this is perfectly fine since people can chose the reasons "Anything, including having no reason at all, obviously." to not do business with someone so I'm not sure why it's a slippery slope to you.
That's not what you said though. I don't think anyone is arguing that employees of a company are obligated to disclose their spending habits, that would just be ludicrous. However, if that information was available or if the company itself made donations/purchases it's perfectly reasonable as a customer to decide not to support that kind of behavior by continuing to do business with that company.
Just as one example Chick-fil-A is rather famously anti-lgbtq and regularly donates part of their profits to anti-lgbtq organizations. As a consumer it's entirely reasonable and moral to refuse to do business with them in order to reduce the money being funnelled to morally repugnant organizations.
Where do you feel I've deviated from this point exactly?
Keep in mind that this is the question at the top of this particular thread we are responding to:
To which loke responded, among other things:
To which I responded what you then replied to.
I'm not quite sure where you see space for interpretation, but I feel i've been pretty solid with my point.
...
Can you see how these two statements are not the same thing? The former is not something anyone had said until you did so while the latter is what the entire rest of this conversation has been about until you tried to pivot to the former.
Indirectly yes a customer absolutely has a say in what an employee spends money on if they are aware of it because it's the customer's money that's indirectly paying for the thing. An employee is a part of a business and when an employee engages in some activity even on their own time if people are aware they work for that company, then that reflects on the company and vice versa. That's one of the reasons companies have very strict rules about representing yourself as an employee or agent of the company.
Furthermore the higher an employee's position in a company the stronger their actions reflect on the company. For someone like a co-founder, practically the highest position in a company, those actions reflect very strongly on the company. The only actions that reflect stronger are ones done directly by the company itself.
This is why HR departments exist, they protect the business from the actions of its employees (or at least attempt to).