That should be an indication that perhaps there are motivations at play other than boosting sales.it always seemed advertisers are wayyy too paranoid about their ads coming up on spicy content
when was the last time people boycotted something (and i mean successfully, not like posts about boycotting chick fil a while it continues to make money hand over fist) on those grounds?
people don't give a shit aslong as they get their sugary drinks or cheeseburgers or whatever other disgusting filth they spend their money on cramming into their fat fucking faces
"Corporate wokeness" in a more general sense can be attributed to 3 main causes (in my opinion):
1. The left has been successful with their "Long March Through the Institutions" (this and many of the other bizarre/frightening trends in modern leftist politics today can probably be traced back to Marcuse and Dutschke, although many people erroneously attribute their ideas to the entirety of the Frankfurt School, or simply "Cultural Marxism"). As a result, many companies are now filled with dogmatic leftists (even at high levels) who bring ideological considerations into nearly every significant decision. This usually happens more quickly at newer firms with younger leadership (i.e. tech firms), as universities/educational institutions appear to have been the main starting point of the Long March.
2. As a firm grows larger, it needs access to increasingly large amounts of investment capital. This usually requires making itself attractive to large investment entities (and, by extension, the people who manage said investment entities). Thus, the phenomenon of "Woke Capital" necessarily results in some degree of wokeness at the firms who depend on Woke Capital. The situation with payment processors is similar, as market concentration in that industry ensures that many companies are highly dependent on one of a handful of (usually woke) processors in order to do business.
The existence of Woke Capital (or Woke Finance more generally) can be seen either as an outgrowth of Reason #1, Reason #3 (below), or (if you prefer) any number of conspiracy theories that you have probably already heard in some form or another.
3. As companies grow larger, they tend to grow more risk averse. This is the mechanism by which (in theory) smaller, newer, more risk-tolerant and innovative firms can "disrupt" industries dominated by lumbering, entrenched firms that are too cautious to innovate. This is especially true for publicly-traded companies, who have to worry about the fickleness of the stock exchange. Because regulatory/legislative changes are a major and recurring source of potential uncertainty (the government's agenda changes every few years due to elections), a firm pursuing a risk-averse strategy would want to minimize the risk of unfavorable regulatory action (as opposed to the risk-tolerant strategy of maximizing the chances of favorable regulatory action).
Most big companies are far more threatened by left-wing electoral victory than by right-wing electoral victory, so minimizing risk would involve trying to stay on the good side of leftist political decision-makers in order to (hopefully) stave off unwelcome regulatory action. In fact, most companies have traditionally taken it for granted that they will benefit from right-wing policies (regardless of how said companies behave) so they see no reason to appease conservatives in the same way that they bend over backwards for leftists.