this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
93 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

3327 readers
2410 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

No memes.

Post news related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

After nearly 50 years, Greenfield says he cannot ‘in good conscience’ continue; Unilever has previously rejected similar claims by Ben & Jerry’s social mission board

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 49 points 4 days ago

Quits comma accusing, not quits accusing.

[–] smeg@infosec.pub 37 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Sells company to a big evil corporation. Complains when corporation does evil things.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

…despite an agreement protecting its social mission when it was taken over in 2000.

Can anyone explain why isn’t this a contract violation?

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Because they're okay with paying a lot to either enull it or get them to drop it.

Just like broadcomm doing to VMware customers

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Because we live in capitalist dictatorships where your access to justice and the rule of law is proportional to your wealth.

[–] sartalon@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago

I wasn't a big fan of their politics when I was young.

I always thought that they were just ice cream makers, stfu.

Now that I am older, I have a deep appreciation for what they did and tried to do. They weren't afraid to speak out and their voice made me aware of issues that were not really in my sight.

They sold to Unilever and so it was only a matter of time.

I agree with others though. It could have been employee owned but they wanted that big payout. This was the cost of that.