> Geez, I hope you do not pay give any money to Google, Microsoft and such.

Yes? I have been divesting from big tech. Not only do I feel good about it but the side effects have been positive too.

Yes, I check whether my local bakery is run by people with hateful politics.

Why shouldn't someone divest from big tech companies if they think they are harmful?

If I found out that my local bakery was funding regressive far-right politics, I absolutely would stop going to that bakery.

These are silly questions with easy answers if you have basic moral standards. By mocking people for having standards, you just reveal you lack them yourself.

You don't think there's a difference between a founder and a random employee?

> [Bad companies] have many employees and I am sure some of them donate to causes you would disagree with using (part of) the money you gave to those companies.

People keep saying these things and I simply don't understand this at all. For sure some of my money goes to things I don't want to support, but for the money I can control and know where it's going without doing active research (though that approach can be also used), and even if it's just what I get as info through newspapers, forums and news sites, it absolutely shouldn't get people who I think of a re extreme rascist (regardless of whether this applies in this specific case).

An employee is different from a cofounder.

For example, I certainly boycott anything to do with Elon Musk, for the same kinds of reasons.

You seem to be falling into the "perfect is the enemy of the good" trap. It's not possibly to perfectly boycott every person and organization that deserves to be sanctioned, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it where it is possible.

So if Kim Jong Un ran your local bakery, you'd still buy his cakes? Or what's your point? That we need to be 100% flawless or else there is no point in doing anything at all?