I am pretty sure we all know what a boycott is, but do we know when and how it can be make a change? A debate on NYTimes’s Room For Debate discusses the effectiveness of boycotts and if they are even worth the hassle. Both debaters agreed that standing and chanting at the entrance of a company is in the past and the most effective way to get a point across to corporate is directly through social media. An example of this is the #DeleteUber movement where thousands of people hashtagged #DeleteUber and caused the C.E.O. to drop out of President Trump’s business council.
Are boycotts still necessary?
Do we underestimate the power of social media?
Would the #DeleteUber movement have had the same results even with a normal crowd boycott?
-Damian Marin
I wouldn't say boycotts are unnecessary simply because social media is the new platform for boycotts. Especially in today's society social media is a very powerful tool that many aren't aware of. Depending on how "trending" the issue is makes the post or hashtag that much more significant. I don't think #DeleteUber would have been so effective without social media. With Uber being the new popular app used for transportation, it's online "scandal" made it a big issue. In the end I think boycotts are still necessary depending on who people are trying to appeal to determines whether they take place on social media or not.
ReplyDelete