this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
269 points (94.7% liked)

News

23837 readers
4358 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 hours ago
[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 hours ago

Oh look on the picture: the first one is corporate scum, the second one is also corporate scum and somehow the third one is also corporate scum

[–] letsgo2themall@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

well damn. I was considering a Ford Maverick because my car is old and is having problems. guess I'll look elsewhere. No new Toyota either.

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

Get a Mazda, they arent perfect (they dmca'd the Homeassistant integration), but at least they have immediately started to help Californias and as far as I was able to find out, they didn't crawl in to Trump's pocket...at least, until now... Only downside is, the CX-50 is made in the same plant as the Toyota Corolla Cross.

[–] Exeous@lemmy.world 116 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Amazon

Meta

McDonald’s

Walmart

Molson coors

Ford motor

John Deere

Lowes

Harley Davidson

Brown Forman

Tractor supply

Toyota

[–] pageflight@lemmy.world 38 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Cool, new reply to Amazon & Meta recruiters.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 14 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You reply to Amazon recruiters? The last email I got wanted me to move across the country and go to the office. I almost replied hahahahahhaha but decided it was more professional not to reply at all

[–] pageflight@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

The most serious discussions I've heard about adjusting comp and benefits have been around hiring and retention, so I figure turning down recruiters may be my best chance to affect practices.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 75 points 20 hours ago (7 children)

I can't think of another time in history where we got a new president then all of a sudden all these companies come out and change their policies so quickly. It's weird it's over social issues too

[–] Majorllama@lemmy.world 62 points 20 hours ago

It's almost like.... They never cared in the first place. I don't know why so many people are shocked. They only ever cared about money. The millisecond they were no longer at risk of losing capitol for not having a thing of course they were all gonna drop it.

[–] SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 20 hours ago

It’s all money. They change their policies to suit their shareholders. The shareholders could not care less that they are discriminating against minority groups.

Fuck all of this. I hope every CEO gets what is coming to them-Painfully, broadcasted live.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Pistcow@lemm.ee 42 points 20 hours ago
[–] corvett@lemmy.world 10 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

How about we hire and promote people who are correct for the job, regardless of their gender or race?

[–] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 8 hours ago

Because the people who are 'correct' for the job always end up being white guys who are direct relatives of someone in management

[–] w3dd1e@lemm.ee 12 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Fully agree in an ideal world.

But in practice, if men, for example, are the only people hired, they tend to be the only people who get experience, making them always the most qualified for the job.

Extra Facts: For jobs behind the camera, there are something like, only 13% of women employed in the film industry. Not all industries are equal so your through fits really well in some places and less so in others.

[–] lukewarm_ozone@lemmy.today 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (3 children)

For jobs behind the camera, there are something like, only 13% of women employed in the film industry.

That doesn't necessarily imply sexism at all, note. If it turns out women are just 6 times less likely than men to want to have these jobs, then this percentage would be 13% in a perfect non-sexist world. (Though 13% is concerningly low; the percentage of women that go into computer science is around 20-25% and that's one of the strongest effects. Plausibly the remaining 1.5-2x difference here is due to sexism; I can buy filmmaking being one of the most sexist industries).

[–] w3dd1e@lemm.ee 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I can’t speak for the whole industry, but I’m a person who wanted to make movies and started out as a film major. When you walk into a room as a student and it’s all men, you want to quit because you feel like you aren’t supposed to be there.

As a developer now, I still feel this way, but I’m a grown up now and I just ignore that feeling.

I think women want to do these jobs but they feel like they aren’t allowed to, or are directly told they aren’t allowed to.

13% is the average of all behind the camera jobs. Composers, cinematographers, writers, directors. There are more women in writing positions and there are very few female composers.

Geena Davis Institute and Women in Film if it’s something you’d like to know about.

[–] w3dd1e@lemm.ee 1 points 4 hours ago

Oh also, Geena Davis Institute does a lot of great research on how men and boys are portrayed in film too. It’s not just about women’s problems.

[–] w3dd1e@lemm.ee 2 points 3 hours ago

Sorry, I remember one more thing (I used to give a talk about equality in media but it’s been awhile).

Before films needed financing and big budgets, women dominated the film industry and were pioneers. Women ran the silent film industry.

https://www.shondaland.com/watch/a29216115/women-old-hollywood-power/

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago

If it turns out women are just 6 times less likely than men to want to have these jobs,

Suggesting that women don't want to work in a fully bro-culture environment isn't really the best arguement you could make.

[–] SoftTeeth@lemmy.world 21 points 16 hours ago

DEI didn't force anyone to hire anybody

If a corporation wants free money then they can staff a diverse workforce. It's literally always been a choice.

Only the idiots are convinced this is a real issue at all. It's a distraction from actual problems in the world that negativity effect people.

DEI laws were required to be created during integration because non whites were being denied loans, jobs, and houses based on race, those are the real DEI laws they want to repeal along side diversity subsidies.

BTW incentivizing diversity measurably improves the wealth/income gap between whites/non whites today and helps upward mobility, which is why they still exist.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 14 points 17 hours ago (21 children)

As long as you're on board with systemic racism, sure. DEI programs were created to address historic discrimination against minorities.

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Steve@communick.news 19 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (6 children)

Ok. Not sure it matters. Those programs were largely symbolic anyway.
Is there any real data suggesting they had any positive effect on anything?

[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 14 points 16 hours ago

While not exactly the same thing as DEI programs, affirmative action programs have a history of efficacy studies that demonstrate positive (if only moderately so) results. However, there’s also solid research that points to backlash effects and criticisms of “positive discrimination.” In other words, while affirmative action programs do somewhat accomplish their goals of helping minority groups achieve, they come at the cost of intentionally discriminating against majority groups (mainly Whites), which understandably creates antipathy towards them from the majority groups. Also, despite some people’s claims that these programs don’t give slots to minority candidates with weaker test scores, resumes, etc, actual examinations of them have shown that this is not actually the case in practice, and that companies and schools have given preference for weaker scoring minority candidates in order to create the public image of being more diverse.

Basically, affirmative action is a mixed bag and I suspect DEI programs are similarly so. The overall net effect may still be positive though, if only slightly.

Personally, I think a better strategy would be to improve education systems for poor communities. Instead of focusing on race directly, focus on improving outcomes for the poor. Due to overlaps in racial and economic variables, you’ll wind up helping racial minorities while avoiding the criticism of engaging in “positive discrimination.” Plus, fixing the pipeline problem early on is a more efficient approach, since it focuses on preventing people from failing early on rather than trying to fix their failures later on.

[–] cannibalkitteh@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

As a trans person, I can tell you that it's generally pretty huge to see it in the mission statement, but followthrough and clearly outlined internal policy is priceless.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 12 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

You know who hasn’t abolished DEI efforts yet and asked shareholders to vote against abandoning them? Apple. And historically Apple tends to beat the market. So imma go ahead and make a the wild statement that these companies will eat a bag of dicks in 10 years and end up adopting DEI under another name while Apple stays the course.

I do think that badly implemented DEI is worse than no DEI and many orgs implemented it badly so this could be a net positive in the end.

[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 9 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes, but Apple has also built their empire on horrible practices in China and by exploiting tax loopholes to the point where they regularly pay zero taxes. I'm not trying to be a purist here—I have an iPhone and an Apple Watch—but I don't think their retainment of DEI programs should be construed as a moral choice; Apple products are largely purchased by liberals, so they have a public image to mind if they're going to avoid reducing sales by pissing off their main customer market.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 11 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Tim Apple donated to the guy who wants to make DEI illegal though, so if Apple does stay the course, I just hope it ends up being under someone else's leadership.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›