Keeping money from going to the Harry Potter franchise isn’t just a symbolic gesture. It’s about preventing real harm to real people.

https://www.advocate.com/news/jk-rowling-anti-trans-organization

J.K. Rowling uses personal wealth to fund anti-trans org

This is where "Harry Potter" profits are going.

Advocate.com
@inthehands Hot Take: Joanne hasn't produced a good story since 2000. The first few Harry Potter installments were kind of interesting but the series quickly devolved after the novelty factor wore off and some of her more problematic ideology started shining through. I have been able to sample some of the newer "Fantastic Beasts" films and... Boy are they terrible. This is one boycott that will be easy to for me to follow (especially since I stopped wanting to give her money and attention around a decade ago).
That take isn’t all that hot.
I haven’t cared about Harry Potter since I was a kid and her books under the Psudonym Robert Galbraith weren’t very good either.
@Yog_Krakthulhu it stays a "hot take" considering millions of people continue to buy her books / films / video games / toys. It's not because you agree to a hot take that it makes it less hot ;)
It also says after 2000. Which the last Harry Potter book came out in 2007, which is close enough in my opinion. The movies would be based on those stories. Less people liked Fantastic Beasts, even less liked The Cursed Child. She didn’t write the video games. That’s just the Harry Potter stuff. So yeah it’s not very hot of a take wether or not I agree.
@Yog_Krakthulhu yeah and all the good ones were pre-2000, i.e. the first three books, four if we're being generous but the fourth was definitely where my 12-year-old self started going "maybe this sort of isn't good actually."
I enjoyed all of them as a kid, but I would never have put them in my top 10.