321–330 of 387 posts
I am asking honestly because the other possibility seems too absurd to believe.
I used to work a hard labor job. People got injured. I got injured more than once. Some people died. It was part of the job and we knew what we were getting into in exchange for money. It was the best way we had to make a living. I don't know if conditions were as hard as working in an Amazon FC, but it was definitely hard work. We needed the money and appreciated the opportunity to earn a living. If the media had de…
Amen. I worked a similar job when I was out of college at FedEx. I unloaded trailers by hand, usually just 2 of us. We were expected to go nonstop until it was done, and our boxes per minute thru-put was closely monitored. It was hard, back breaking work & it paid minimum wage. I did it at the time because I didn't have many other opportunities. I imagine this is one of the best jobs available to these people, for on…
Well when you come out of the gate swinging, what do you expect? She didn't seem reasonable either. Her mind was set on Amazon warehouse conditions = universally bad, and wouldn't take any other answer.
... imagine this the other way. Imagine that "@rulesObeyer" is the one with the agenda. Imagine RO is paid by a competitor to spread misinformation and "stir the pot", then re-read the thread. Suddenly RO seems incapable of reason or adapting in the face of clear evidence against its assertions. It makes for a fun read. (Similarly, "anyone condemning this comment or defending @rulesObeyer must just be @rulesObeyer in…
Yes, if the situation was different, than my judgement of it would be different. This is not a novel observation.
The context matters - you cannot decouple[0] this interaction from the economic and social structures it arose from.
[0] https://everythingstudies.com/2018/05/25/decoupling-revisite...
I feel like this is twitter in a nutshell, and that goes for everyone involved. The very first response is "eally like? cause your workers are liars?" There we go, now the entire conversation is everything or nothing, you're either with them or against them. Then it's off into personal attacks and arguments about followers and etc. Nobody is talking to each other in any of that. They're just posting for everyone else…
I had to delete Twitter from my phone - I found it would make me angry for no discernible reason, and I'm generally a pretty even-tempered person. Not healthy. Once you detach, you realize quickly that much of Twitter represents a tiny minority of loud, self-righteous people. When "Twitter explodes" in righteous indignation, I feel like the best move would simply be to ignore it and wait for everyone to move on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This thread was about the term, and that's the definition. If you have to change it to "you'll know it when you see it" then perhaps the definition is not so useful. The biggest companies have started from the smallest of ventures so your personal perception of size and importance has nothing to do with the term's qualification. You keep ignoring important parts of what's commonly considered the defining properties…
It doesn't seem that way, it is that way. If you have to muddy the definition to make it fit then it's not very practical. I sense your particular context being a class of people who have power through ownership of means. My point is that ownership is available to anyone, either by buying shares (fine if you say that's difficult) OR by starting their own business (literally minutes away on the internet). If anyone ca…
OK. I wrote a really long response attempting to get through, but frankly, at this point, you should write a paper and submit to some journals, because this whole line of reasoning would be a significant finding if it stands up to scrutiny.
Are these account really related to Amazon? How could anybody confirm this? Can't all these answering accounts be a part of a parody that wants to ridiculise Amazon? I am asking honestly because the other possibility seems too absurd to believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn’t take the term “Bot” literally - here it’s meant in the same vein as a “Russian troll” or more clearly an astroturfer. I think many of the people who find fault with rulesobeyer don’t use Twitter. The ambassadors are comoletely robotic in the way they use Twitter - they don’t come across as people, they come across as corporate accounts. Even developer advocates aren’t this robotic. I feel like I’m looking…
I insist on taking those terms literally, and you should too. Public discourse isn't going to work if "bot" and "Russian troll" become synonyms for "I don't believe what you're saying and don't think you do either".
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheKenChilds/status/1161847717397...