Geoffrey MillerVerified account

I'm not trying to get her fired. I'm trying to convince fewer people to subscribe to the NY Times. Isn't it legitimate to promote consumer boycotts against unethical companies?

I'm torn on it. On the one hand I believe people should buy what they want, and businesses can reap the benefits and penalties of their actions. On the other hand, a conscious decision to boycott can turn into an outrage mob that reinforces bubbles. 1/

I suppose my gut feeling is, individual decisions on this are likely to be cooler and less knee-jerk as a whole, while group decisions fostered via social media tend to have a snowball effect promoting outrage mobs, and foster politics becoming part of the consumer's identity. 2/

So TL,DR: I'm torn on the idea of consciously driven, social-media promoted boycotts. 3/

Fair enough. I can also see both sides of this issue. But in this particular case, I think the NY Times needs a very clear wake-up call.

They do. I think if we're going to apply social shaming to news entities who claim to neutrality, it should be towards their patent unwillingness to hire more than token conservatives, who are outnumbered by the flood of liberals. 1/

Part of the economic problem is that they've made themselves economically dependent upon having a political slant. Instead of lefties going for their dose of liberalism at TNR or The Nation, they're getting it at the NYT, WP, and CNN instead. 2/

So of course they respond to their overwhelmingly liberal market by giving them the red meat they want, further driving away consumer who isn't on the left, furthering the vicious cycle. 3/