I can't say I like the way amazon treats its workers at all, they have massive blind spot I can't understand why they can't see it but I just see a massive disconnect between everyone's anger over this and everyones eagerness to use Amazon. I mean all those orders that make the workers lives miserable come from us. It's not normal to be able to deliver something the same dau or the next day from the other side of a continent... That burden falls on the people being asked to meet these impossible consumer demands.
Facebook, Amazon etc....
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
No I assume they do it to strip any pieces about worker's rights and increased wages from upcoming legislation.
Although to be fair that probably is fun for Bezos.
It's deliberate. This is nothing new.
You are right, I think. It'll be interesting to see whether it changes under the new CEO.
I keep coming back to the same question: why can't legislators do more to protect workers from shady practices? At some point we have to realize the incentives are there for major corporations like Amazon to exploit the law.
It won’t.
First you need competent politicians who genuinely care about people. Most countries don't have that.
I'm not sure if I agree with George Carlin when he says that a country's politicians are a reflection of its people. Most of the stuff politicians do ultimately fly over the head of the "common man". It's not until you see the results that people will go: "Fine... That was a smart decision."
In the case of the US: workers' rights, social mobility and heavier taxation of the rich will be converted to "more useless government regulations, more taxes and fewer jobs because the honorable elites will escape the country".
These are opinion pieces. I'm looking for specific instances where Bezos changed the narrative of how the Post actually covers the news in its news section.
this seems kinda impossible to prove
Playing devil's advocate here: why should people automatically believe the argument that Bezos committed editorial interference?
Nobody cares about the opinion side. The Post is known for hard news so if Bezos has done something to influence the news section then it should be made known.
Which is why speculating about it is futile. People are simply going to invent the outcome they want to praise or vilify.
If it's impossible to prove one way or another, why do you chose to believe he doesn't interfere?
In previous posts you said he was a business man who takes advantage of what the system allows him in order to profit. Now that he owns a newspaper he's not going to take advantage of it? Doesn't seem in character.
The burden is on those making the accusation, not on those who aren't.
The previous post was about maximizing profits, not about a conspiracy of clandestinely using a newspaper to advance Bezos' political interests.
But you agreed it's impossible to prove it one way or another, or did I misunderstand?
Yes. That's correct. If there is tangible evidence then let's see it instead of engaging in conspiratorial accusations.
Does it really seem so farfetched to you, knowing how he conducts himself in his other businesses, apparently taking advantage of everything he can? With the WaPo he's just a good samaritan? I don't buy it. Saying ruthless businessmen do shady things to advance their interests is hardly a conspiracy.
I suppose people are going to believe whatever fits their preferred narrative. If there was any truth to this sort of conspiracy then all kinds of former WaPo employees would be talking about it to competing outlets, but that hasn't happened, in fact the narrative appears to be to the contrary since the editor of the Post has said Bezos has never interfered in a single story.
Is the point that editorially more pro-billionaire opinion pieces are getting through these days than pre-takeover? If anything allowing the point to get across in opinion pieces which plenty of people will digest as straight up news is worse.
yeah I agree
I'd just think he was because he seems like a bit of a scumbag to me, but I can't prove anything
his political interests are his profits
Just another poor company out there trying to maximize profits, or some other bs like that.
It just strikes me as strange that you seem to see Bezos as two different people. Amazon Bezos is a businessman who spends truckloads of cash lobbying to further his interests even if that hurts a lot of people, many of whom are his employees. WaPo Bezos is a guy who wouldn't dream of using his power in the media to further his interests. Hard to believe in my opinion.
And again, I don't think having the opinion that rich billionaires resort to shady practices is in any way conspiratorial.
I don't think its strange at all. I'm not a Bezos fan per say, but I also don't go for fabricated conspiracies as a device to pile on the guy in the absence of any evidence.
Last edited:
I don't know why you keep bringing up the word conspiracy. It doesn't apply here at all.
Do you think saying powerful people use their money and influence on the media to make themselves and their businesses look good is a conspiracy?
Is saying politicians' decisions are influenced by the money they get from corporations a conspiracy? You can't prove it either, they can just say they vote a certain way because it's the best for their constituents.
And by the way, if you google you will find cases of WaPo people saying their were penalized for criticizing Bezos. Also, we all know people often self-censure, a reporter is less likely to criticize their boss or their interests. You choose to believe this isn't Bezos' intention at all when buying such an influential a media group, even though his behavior in other businesses suggest he's not the kind of person who goes around spreading good intentions.
You always seem to be very pragmatical on political issues on this forum and very aware of the cynicism and less honorable intentions behind money and politics. I don't understand why you're applying a different logic in this case.
This wouldn't be a surprise. Who is going to go out of their way to criticize their boss, much less do so publicly. As for Bezos, he had no interest in buying the Post and actually had to be coaxed and cajoled into doing it by others who convinced him it would be a good idea. Sometimes Billionaries just do this stuff out of vanity or altruism (ie wanting to promote the press or wanting to turn a struggling business into a profitable one). The guy who runs Salesforce recently bought Time Magazine. Do i think he bought it to promote Salesforce ? Of course not.
Last edited:
In my experience, when people say they're not something per se, they're kinda still something. It's the mildest possible way to distance yourself from something.
Or is that not how you used it?
Good thread:
These are the main points:
These are the main points:
They are geniuses, evil ones but geniuses nonetheless. There is no way to compete against the above.
Anyone else getting the Resident Evil vibe with Big Tech? Just read that Apple is studying the potential of airpods as a health device.
These companies are becoming an Umbrella Corporation-esque entity. They'll dominate everything.
These companies are becoming an Umbrella Corporation-esque entity. They'll dominate everything.
I try to avoid Amazon as much as possible. Evil company bent on taking over the world, the same goes for all the tech giants. Governments are seemingly letting the opportunity to bring them down a peg or two go by.