141–150 of 289 posts
This argument conflates a number of issues and frankly loses steam on that basis. The running list of demands so far: Don’t sell facial recognition, don’t work with the government, kick a paying customer off of your system because of who they provide services to and while we are at it you shouldn’t be working with anyone I don’t like. Is that it? For now, but check back with me cause I might want to add greedy invest…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Second, you risk AWS being seen as non-neutral based on the whims of employees' feelings about a company (as opposed to something illegal). There are plenty of legal things that I think it’s fine with being non-neutral on. A private company SHOULD be non-neutral based on the whims of the employees! Who else steers their ship?
Presumably the shareholders via a board of directors and CEO?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A salary is an expense for the company providing it, but the person receiving it profits from it.
I'd like you to try to claim your salary as corporate "profit" on your next tax return. Tell me how that goes.
This argument conflates a number of issues and frankly loses steam on that basis. The running list of demands so far: Don’t sell facial recognition, don’t work with the government, kick a paying customer off of your system because of who they provide services to and while we are at it you shouldn’t be working with anyone I don’t like. Is that it? For now, but check back with me cause I might want to add greedy invest…
> This person, who has spoken with me on the condition that their name not be revealed for fear of professional retribution
This is not how an workplace environment should be. Don't one of Amazon's leadership principals talk about being vocally self-critical?
Yet they drive such a fear mongering culture where unless you're making soft complaints you have to be silent or anonymous for fear of being fired.
> Regardless of our views on the military, no one should be profiting from “increasing the lethality” of the military. It makes no sense for these two clauses to exist together. If you do not believe that people should profit from increasing the lethality of the military, then you do not believe in the utility of having a military. Especially when the author follows up with this sentence: > We will not silently build…
No, I believe the military should exist but shouldn’t be too good at its job. If the US president knows that 3,000 American soldiers will die doing something, it will make the calculus of doing it very different than if only 3 soldiers would die. This may actually save lives overallx
That's a really silly idea. A military that's bad at its job is a military that can't act as an adequate deterrent and can't defend its country or its allies. You might as well just save the money and disband most of it, and let the countries who kept competent militaries have their way with you and your allies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can AWS be non-neutral? Sure, legally and even ethically, that's fine. If AWS is non-neutral, will that hurt their ability to attract clients? Absolutely. I'm the first one in line to abolish ICE, but if AWS starts kicking people they don't like off of AWS I'll also be the first one to stop using it. Sure, we agree on ICE, what about companies that make violent video games? Companies that make firearm accessories?
Why abolish ICE? What specifically is the issue with ICE short of news and celebrities demanding it because it’s in vogue? They serve a legitimate law enforcement function in our country, which by last check doesn’t have open borders and prosecutes those that cross illegally?
Note that I'm not saying we should be getting rid of Customs and Border Patrol, nor am I saying anything crazy like we shouldn't have borders. The problem with ICE is that they're a weird pet agency under DHS that has a lot of power, minimal oversight, and a history of abusing their power.
They also do some exceptionally terrible things like snatching immigrants from courtrooms instead of you know, using local police forces like they should.
I think it's important to note this person has to remain anonymous just to voice their concerns about the their employer > This person, who has spoken with me on the condition that their name not be revealed for fear of professional retribution This is not how an workplace environment should be. Don't one of Amazon's leadership principals talk about being vocally self-critical? Yet they drive such a fear mongering cu…
I can't think of any company that would let that slide.
> Amazon, where I work, is currently allowing police departments around the country to purchase its facial recognition product, Rekognition, and I and other employees demand that we stop immediately. Ok, nod, nod... > The letter also contained demands to kick Palantir, the software firm that powers much of ICE's deportation and tracking program, off Amazon Web Services and to institute employee oversight for ethical…
[flagged]