Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

Something I've been thinking about recently: most progressives would probably say that guns are at least as bad for society as social media, but while they talk about Mark Zuckerberg all the time it has never even occurred to them that they don't even know who runs Smith & Wesson

Zuckerberg is different because he also controls a majority of the voting shares. Smith & Wesson has been owned by various private equity firms and is now a subsidiary of a larger group, so going after their CEO is basically pointless.

What percentage would you say have (a) thought about it -> looked into it -> decided it's pointless to do anything vs. (b) not even thought about it?

In any group, the percentage of people doing from-first-principles thinking about the group activity is very small. It doesn’t prove anything special in this case.

There's a process of discovery, where people try to target certain companies, industries etc. for criticism, and recruit others to help them. People have tried this with the gun industry.

But do you go after the CEO of Smith & Wesson? CEO of the private equity company that happened to own them at the time, or their current parent co.? But CEO has little influence, so maybe the board? Major shareholders? *Their* CEOs? (infinite regress begins)