I don't think Microsoft do claim that, nor is that really why they did this.
Microsoft is a profit seeking entity that is trying to maximize its profit and goodwill (an intangible asset) at the same time.
Thus for them the best moves are those which:
* Have minimal cost.
* Distract people away from profitable dirty laundry which doesn't attract goodwill (e.g. concentration camp contracts).
* Buy them some goodwill among some people - especially through the mechanism of "outrage marketing" (people who by dint of attacking "the right" when they attack this will naturally defend Microsoft - a bit like how Nike used colin Kaepernick).
They did this because "change master to main" appeared in a local maxima that maximized these three conditions.
This is being reflected all around the corporate sphere because what applies to Microsoft applies to a lot of other companies.
Just abut the only company to handle one of these situations in a way that seems rational to me is Trader Joe’s. Some people on Twitter decided that having a burrito labeled “Trader Jose” was a horrendous form of cultural appropriation and demanded the company change all products with this kind of word play in branding. TJ’s considered it and just basically said “no, move along” and the whole woke twitterverse moved on to some other target.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/...
The marketing/PR people in any organisation care passionately about what other people think of the organisation - naturally, because it's their job to care about this.
Journalists are insanely influenced by what other people are saying and love nothing better than a nice piece of juicy controversy to get those ads clicked.
Stock markets are notoriously twitchy about rumours and "public perception".
Most corporate CEO's got to that position by climbing a greasy pole where what other people think of you is literally the most important factor in your climb.
So almost everybody involved in making these kinds of decision are exactly the people most vulnerable to being bullied like this.
But if you can resist - there's only a few thousand Twitterati who will bother even trying to enforce any kind of boycott, and they're probably not your customers in the first place. It's completely ineffectual if you can just ignore it.
Telling the geeks in the IT basement to change the name of the "master branch" on that "git" thing that the organisation apparently uses, so that thousands of angry people (some of them journalists at large media organisations) aren't shouting at you on Twitter seems like such an easy choice to make ;)
But that's an obervation we make in hindsight, and without knowing it was like for the targets. At the time, their phone is probably ringing off the hook, media are calling, etc., and they have no idea when the attack will end or if people are getting fired, advertisers withdrawing or any of that.
I'll applaud anyone, left, right or other-vectored, who stands up to mobs, though. I'm not a fan of the phrase "cancel culture," but it gets one thing right: it is a cultural development, both the culture of outrage and the culture of appeasing the mob. The injustice of a, outraged mob declaring itself judge, jury and executioner only works if targets try to appease them. So while the culture of outrage is a hard problem because it's diffuse, anyone who refuses to accept that injustice is has an outsized effect in pushing back against the appeasement side of it.
a) modern corporate culture trying to make employees take on the company they work for as part of their personal identity
b) young, liberal people working in PR departments who would be horrified if anyone personally called them racist / sexist / homophobic etc
These people go to work, see some random account on twitter saying "<your company> is racist" and a) and b) combined makes this feel like a personal attack on them that they have to defend and social signal against.
This is the most likely explanation I have come up with, because as you said, none of this really makes sense from a logical business perspective.
You are saying 'this group thinks' as if all people who would identify as adhering to leftist ideologies (from the extremes to common social democracy) act like this. You are trying to stuff people into boxes: you are either team A or team B. That is polarization; something we can sorely do without.
I'm also convinced that the screamers aren't really interested in stopping black people from being offended (let alone actually harassed/murdered). I think they're much more interested in getting recognition for fighting the fight.
Its just the 99% correlation with my life experience, observations of real impactful polarization, which leave me without another way to describe it.
Be my guest in rewriting it more accurately.
There needs to be push-back if they [those left/liberals not in this camp] want to disassociate. But where is it? I don't think there is appetite for this argument.
I know many of left/liberal-types (in the Bay Area) all who either believe, or accept this as silly but somehow think it is meaningful to some people and so should be gone along with...
I don't have the experience of any other group doing this. I agree that it is not inherently a political ideology.
The people involved proudly proclaim to be left and liberal. I think it is important to say that because I know people in other parts of the country that see these as insults and would be surprised to know that people commonly self-identify as these terms.
I find that this group thinks their behavior is better and more helpful than apathy, "silence", and the idea of rampant exclusionary hate from the right. When its really not better, its different, but its not more helpful. There is absolutely a constant threat from people afraid of bird watchers in a park, people that blend into their ranks and are willing to weaponize their understanding of race, two seconds after donating to the Democratic Party.