Under most circumstances, I don’t patronize business organizations that have policies and practices of which I don’t approve, even if I happen to like their products or services. For example, there’s a very well-known company that makes accessories for tech devices (smartphones, tablets, etc.) that I absolutely will not patronize because I happen to know that they treat their employees like crap.

Now, I don’t openly badmouth this company, nor do I discourage others from doing business with them. Considering the market for such products, of course, there are many alternatives to choose from, so it’s not like I’m cutting off my nose to spite my face, as it were, to stand on principle.

This is an important consideration, in my view, as there have been more than a few organizations I’ve considered not doing business with over the years for similar reasons. I wouldn’t refrain from purchasing a product I very much needed, for example, from a company whose business practices I considered odious if said company were the exclusive provider of that product. The rationale here being that the utility such a product would afford me far outweighs the relatively paltry contribution my purchase would add to the wealth of a company I don’t like.

I wouldn’t refrain from seeing a film in which Alec Baldwin appears just because I think he’s a creepy guy with leftist sentiments. He’s a decent actor, and the pleasure I stand to derive from seeing a good film he happens to be in outweighs any distaste I might have for him personally. I also don’t see the negligible contribution to Baldwin’s wealth that my movie ticket purchase will bring as contributing to any unseemly activity or cause.

I wouldn’t say the same about the actress Alyssa Milano, however – not that anyone is offering her any work right now. In this case, Ms. Milano has positioned herself as an activist and an opportunistic mouthpiece for the left who is clearly dedicated to some of the most abhorrent aspects of the political left’s agenda.

That’s pretty much where I draw the line. There’s a distinction between someone who embraces leftist ideology (or anything else for which I have a low tolerance) and someone who actively advances the proliferation of said ideology to the detriment of the public at large. Another related example: I could care less what the gay couple down the block do with their time in general, but when they begin to engage in widespread, organized LGBTQ activism, they become the enemy, because in so doing, they have aligned themselves with a malignant political faction that seeks to subvert the nation culturally whilst stultifying our liberties and the rule of law.

I don’t typically endorse boycotts, particularly considering the hostile, quasi-racketeering overtones the practice has begun to take on in our society. I believe the issue of how we address people and organizations that engage in overtly subversive activities is a choice each individual must make based on conscience, whether we’re talking about a celebrity, a conglomerate, a university or a major sports organization.

Which brings us to the tech giants and social media platforms with which we have become so familiar, and upon which some of us have become entirely too dependent.

Big tech companies have obviously provided some great things in the area of utility in the digital age. Search engines have put information that used to take individuals, students and businesses days or weeks to amass at our fingertips. Platforms like Facebook have facilitated ready communication for interest groups and families in far-flung locations around the world, want ads, business services and many other handy features. Smart phone apps have allowed people to work and practically live online.

The problem lies in the fact that companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and others have demonstrated that they not only have little tolerance for ethics and a large segment of our population, but they have positioned themselves as activist entities that are clearly dedicated to some of the most abhorrent aspects of the political left’s agenda.

Starting in 2011, President Barack Obama had a series of meetings with principals of the largest tech companies. These were framed for the press and the public as relatively mundane issues over which presidents often meet with industry leaders, but at the time, a lot of us wondered why many of these meetings were being held in secret. In April of 2016, the U.K. Daily Mail reported that various Google staffers had visited the White House over 427 times during Obama’s presidency; this was an average of more than one visit a week.

At the time, we were assured by tech company mouthpieces that there was nothing sinister about the secrecy or the frequency of these interactions – but these are the same organizations that have been repeatedly caught lying about their privacy and other practices over the last 15 years.

Considering the recent deportment of these companies, all of this begs the question of whether widespread censorship, shadow banning and social engineering were agenda items at those secret meetings.

I completely understand the utility tech companies provide, and I sympathize with the fact that the modality of interaction on social media can be exciting and fun. But in the case of the worst offenders among these companies in the area of societal subversion, censorship and unethical business practices, Americans need to take a serious look at the benefits versus the aggregate damage these organizations are doing.

In truth, by patronizing these companies, we are literally pouring billions of dollars into the coffers of those who dedicatedly seek to subvert our nation culturally whilst stultifying our liberties and the rule of law. It’s one thing to be aware of their practices and to articulate our frustrations and concerns on increasingly hostile social media platforms, but it’s quite another to be willing to sacrifice fun and convenience for long-term security and the preservation of our republic.

Article posted with permission from Erik Rush