Jon<p>Interesting data., My takeaways are somewhat somewhat different. The Economic Blackout didn't exempt Costco (just locally-owned businesses) or single out Target, so at least in terms of web traffic to these four sites it had zero net impact ... </p><p>By contrast the data makes it seem like the boycotts specifically focusing on Target <em>are</em> having a steadily-increasing impact ... not surprising, I've repeatedly heard from experienced organizers that these targeted actions (also including <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/TeslaTakedown" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>TeslaTakedown</span></a>) are more likely to be effective at this point.</p><p>It's also worth highlighting that the Target boycott by We Are Somebody and <a href="https://www.targetfast.org/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Target Fast</a> are both Black-led projects. So to the extent that white people are crediting the impact on Target to the white-led Economic Boycott -- or using the overall impact on Target to inflate the impact of the white-led Economic Boycott -- it's an example systemic anti-Blackness from people claiming to oppose white supremacy.</p><p>The Forbes article did mention other Target boycotts, and mentioned Target Fast by name (although not We Are Somebody) , but the headline and overall framing is very much in terms of the Economic Blackout. And when it got excerpted in the thread on Bluesky, even the mention of the Black-led projecs was erased ... </p><p>Watch whiteness work</p><p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://alaskan.social/@seachanger" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>seachanger</span></a></span> </p><p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/EconomicBlackout" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>EconomicBlackout</span></a></p>