Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

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.

I took your point to be that people have some desire to change both FB and S&W, but they only engage in personal criticism of FB's CEO and not that of S&W, and they are unreflective about why this might be.

And I agree with this, as far as it goes. But I think this is evidence that people are copying effective strategies for exercising influence from each other, not that they're stuck in a blind-spot.

Could not possibly disagree with this more, and if you find your models about mass political behavior breaking on reality I think this belief is an excellent place to look for an explanation

To me, it looks like personal criticism of Zuckerberg as a means of influencing Facebook is effective. It's not very pleasant, but it seems like it works, and that's why people do it.

I think if you asked most progressives to list every means of influencing gun policy they could think of, virtually none of them would mention pressuring CEOs. But it you asked "Should gun-maker CEOs be held accountable for gun deaths?" they would overwhelmingly respond "yes."

On the flipside, I don't think most progressives think criticising Zuckerberg is at all effective at influencing the trajectory of FB, and I don't think they really even know how they'd want Facebook to change. "Breaking it up" sounds fine, though they don't know what that means.

I'm picking on progressives with this example because it's the one I've been thinking about recently. I don't think typical conservatives are any more thoughtful re: efficacy or any more likely to avoid having their attention manipulated by availability