To Market Their Products or Protect Their Wealth?
As I have repeatedly established with the digital sector of the markets, whenever an oppressive measure is observed, it traces back to state intervention. The corporation cannot oppress. The corporation is a business structure. It is comprised of citizens engaging in the production process of some good or service, and they sell that service to people who would benefit from it (otherwise, they will refuse it, which they are free to do). That is the basics of free exchange. If the corporation does do something their customers disapprove of, then it would be accepted in less exchanges and be less prosperous. The corporation can fail or succeed, but it cannot oppress.
Only when we introduce government intervention can we arrive at a scenario where a business can do something undesirable to/for consumers and not fail. If a government intervenes by funding the business or by sabotaging its competitors, it can prop that business up despite the lack of reciprocity between it and consumers. This is perfectly logical as government itself is not reciprocal – it forcefully takes from us by definition. So what government does with those funds is in its own interests.
When it comes to the 2 programs used for censorship, the single program used to disseminate propaganda online, and the flawed narratives over "extremism", "terrorism", and "racism", such products were funded by the state. The hosts of those software maintained their economic statuses only with the aid of the state, which, in addition to funding them, also branded their competitors as "dangerous". The state was the origin of post-2016 information control.
"But they are private businesses that can manage their services as they see fit!" – leftist.
Of course, they are private businesses, but they accepted government intervention, which makes them privileged economically. This is no different than if the state gave $20k worth of training to your competitor (work peer or economic rival) and your competitor gained success at your cost. Your competitor is a swine for taking the easy way out instead of competing fairly; and while he should be punished for accepting that deal, it would not fix the problem.
Facebook, Google, Twitter, Bing, etc... these businesses are that competitor that accepted money that was forcefully taken from everyone else. Villains they may be, but the ultimate villain and source of this privileged treatment is the state.
This is legal inequality, and a debate I have had for well over a year now. It is now time that I address another question:
"If government is creating all of our problems, then why are the corporations woke?" – conservative
Why Corporate America is Woke
For anyone who has ever worked on a commercial construction site, they cannot fathom the amount of time and money that is wasted on superfluous safety precautions and equipment. For instance, a finish carpenter has to be in harness (which is hundreds of dollars by itself) and tied off to something secure if he is merely 6 ft off the ground. This is but one example of many where productivity is impeded by wasteful safety protocol, and there is a reason that it exists.
The corporate contractor has to protect itself from safety-related lawsuits. The degree to which the corporation needs protection reflects the likelihood of accidents and how arbitrary the law and legal system handles such cases. If having a silly rule (that everyone knows is silly) helps build the case that the corporation should not be held accountable for another person's actions, then the corporation has an incentive to adopt that rule regardless of it being silly.
Having woke human resources departments serves a similar function. Anti-discrimination laws and past court decisions on those cases, have proven to be arbitrary enough that quite a few nonsensical cases have resulted in corporations losing large sums of money to discrimination lawsuits. I won't waste a reader's time by listing various examples of this occurring, but of lawsuits, anti-discrimination lawsuits have resulted in more losses than any other category of lawsuits in corporate America. It has become a threat to these businesses to such an extent (in both likelihood of occurring and severity of punishment) that they sought protection for themselves.
Imagine if you had a business, and you had to protect it from an arbitrary threat. You couldn't problem-solve your way out of this, since it is an arbitrary threat. At any point in time, this type of lawsuit can happen. All that you can do at this point is claim that you did everything within your power to mitigate these "problems" so that the lawsuit's sum will be lesser.
Having gender studies "scholars" and other social "scientists" is a way of showing a court that you are spending resources to mitigate these risks. The average corporate official probably realizes that wokologists tend to be academic frauds with no training in mathematics, empirical analysis, actual psychology, or any other form of rational or empirical analysis used to tackle problems. The corporation does not hire the woke to solve problems. It hires them to appear as though it is doing everything that needs to be done to stop discrimination. It has no other choice as long as anti-discrimination cases can be made on an arbitrary basis.
A further reason that the major corporations have HR departments full of these frauds is that these departments tend to be the only places aside from state-funded education where they can be hired. As such, there is a feedback loop.
There is a demand for the services (protection) of the woke, and the supply is the current education system. This supply-and-demand is created by government. Specifically, it is created by anti-discrimination law.
Corporations are woke to protect their wealth – not to market their products.
This is not to be confused with the question of the woke CEO. The CEO that poorly manages his corporation can appeal to charity to cover for his incompetence. All woke causes can be put in charitable terms. In fact, they are often explicitly stated as such – X company used y funds for environmental reasons. If the profit margins for the quarter are subpar, a CEO has an incentive to appeal to woke ideology to cover for his mismanagement of the company.