Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

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)

Maybe the manufacturer is the wrong place to attack. Maybe the retailers? The local gun shop guy? Some success has been had with persuading certain mainstream-but-gun-adjacent stores reducing gun availability.

I don't think you understood my point, but I can't lay it out any clearer. You're arguing over whether orange is a good color for clothing, and I'm trying to make a point about how many people seem to be unknowingly colorblind.