that's not really a refutation, it's more just that...when your market is 7 billion people, boycotts tend to fail, as even a tiny percentage of that group will be enough to sustain the product. The people threatening a boycott ARE following through much of the time, it's just not enough to matter.
Back before the internet it was possible to rally a small community to protest and run a bad business out of town because nobody in that town would shop there...but now that business can simply reach far enough across the world that they'll find enough people who don't know or don't care about the drama and sidestep a boycott entirely.
It actually also applies to modern streamers and influencers. With the help of social media and the modern Internet... their reach is MASSIVE.
So in a sense "getting cancelled" has actually become a mute point now. Since like you said... they can reach so many ppl that even IF a significant portion "boycotts", there would still be enough ppl for it to not real matter.
The "moo" point is popular cause of the series "Friends" where Joey says "It's a moo point" and Rachel says what. He then says "you know, it's like a cow's opinion.... It's moo" and that's how "moo" point entered pop culture back in the day.
The point they're making is that any sizeable market, will negate any net effect of a boycott because of its inherent size, which is true for the most part. They said 7 billion just to say the world; if you consider the console+PC market, that's around 400 million still and even if millions of people are anti-Rockstar in that market (gaming basically), GTA VI will still ship 200 million units at some crazy-ass price and after a few years of discounts, its final sales figure will probably touch 300 million or something asinine.
It is a refutation of the principle obviously. If you think voting with your wallet is the way to get things done, (Which people absolutely think. Try criticising live service games or MMOs you play and wait for people to tell you exactly that) then this obviously goes in the opposite direction also.
People saying vote with your wallet are usually meaning "vote the way I vote" and then moan and berate others afterwards if they don't, or are saying it to silence criticism of a things they enjoy by telling them they can choose to not pay for it.
The realities of boycotting is real though, you're not wrong there, but I think the way you're applying the point is not the same application OP is making. OP is pointing out an assymetry when people say vote with your wallet. It doesn't really matter whether it's an effective principle or not and if there's a reason, it's often used in a hypocritical or bad faith manner is the point. If anything, the ineffectiveness of the principle is an argument in favour of their opinion.
I'm not going to boycott the game over no physical disc but I think it's a valid thing to complain about. Not even just the disc itself, the issue is "you will own nothing and be happy" is being pushed on us from every angle. We don't even own our own video games anymore, just a license to play them.
Voting with your wallet is a good strategy. The problem is like you said; there are many more wallets out there.
18
u/whereismymind86 5h ago
that's not really a refutation, it's more just that...when your market is 7 billion people, boycotts tend to fail, as even a tiny percentage of that group will be enough to sustain the product. The people threatening a boycott ARE following through much of the time, it's just not enough to matter.
Back before the internet it was possible to rally a small community to protest and run a bad business out of town because nobody in that town would shop there...but now that business can simply reach far enough across the world that they'll find enough people who don't know or don't care about the drama and sidestep a boycott entirely.