Just speculating, what if this was a false flag?
Someone against Amazon creates a bunch of fake accounts and posts pro-Amazon stuff. Then sends those accounts to journalists.
'Fake' Amazon workers defend company on Twitter
401–410 of 433 posts
Re: 'Fake' Amazon workers defend company on Twitter
#402I feel like authenticity of online communication is an unsolved problem. The web was supposed to be a democratizing platform: all you need to communicate with the world is an ISP and a keyboard. But if there's no way to control for authenticity, online sentiment will just be an arms race for who can pay for the best astroturfing.
Yes, and if you are somewhat tech savvy OR "grew up" on the internet (say 40 and younger) you understand this. The problem is previous generations who don't really understand this. Perhaps one angle to tackle the problem is to educate the group(s) of people who continue to believe whatever they read on Twitter, Facebook, etc.
[deleted]
Re: 'Fake' Amazon workers defend company on Twitter
#403No way a company with the resources of Amazon is using several day old twitter accounts with first google result profile pictures. This is the equivalent of someone spray painting "We hate workers! signed, Amazon" on a wall I don't think even twitter can verify who made those accounts because it's so easy to vpn and use google voice numbers. You can choose what to believe, though
Indeed
False flag is a thing.
Re: 'Fake' Amazon workers defend company on Twitter
#404I feel like authenticity of online communication is an unsolved problem. The web was supposed to be a democratizing platform: all you need to communicate with the world is an ISP and a keyboard. But if there's no way to control for authenticity, online sentiment will just be an arms race for who can pay for the best astroturfing.
Once I saw the deep fake video of Tom Cruise, I realized we are entering a new phase of the internet. One that will require a blockchain-based identity and trust graph. All content will have to be signed with a private key linked to a zero-knowledge proved biometric user account. Every node must have at least one path to a 'real account' otherwise users will learn to totally and completely dismiss it.
Re: 'Fake' Amazon workers defend company on Twitter
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean the real Uber drivers who correctly understood that Prop 22 would allow them to voluntarily work in the way they want to work, despite the fact that well-meaning busybodies didn't like it?
No, they literally hired actors for their headshots. (1,2). Drivers also sued Uber for the barage of texts sent to them trying to sway their support on the issue (3). 1. https://i.imgur.com/JlZIpAI.jpg 2. https://www.backstage.com/u/alisha-elaine-anderson/ 3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/22/uber-pr...
I hated the Prop. 22 campaign as much as anyone else (the notifications from the Uber app were especially egregious) but just because someone is an actor doesn't mean they can't drive for Uber. I remember reading that a lot of actors (who aren't super wealthy) actually drive for Uber as the hours are very flexible.
Re: 'Fake' Amazon workers defend company on Twitter
#406I feel like authenticity of online communication is an unsolved problem. The web was supposed to be a democratizing platform: all you need to communicate with the world is an ISP and a keyboard. But if there's no way to control for authenticity, online sentiment will just be an arms race for who can pay for the best astroturfing.
Once I saw the deep fake video of Tom Cruise, I realized we are entering a new phase of the internet. One that will require a blockchain-based identity and trust graph. All content will have to be signed with a private key linked to a zero-knowledge proved biometric user account. Every node must have at least one path to a 'real account' otherwise users will learn to totally and completely dismiss it.
How on earth is blockchain going to scale to authenticate all online communication?
Re: 'Fake' Amazon workers defend company on Twitter
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... This is a fantastic read.
This article is interestingly promotes kinda flawed communist thinking about 'overperforming losers'. Most companies make 'reasonable' profits or even losses. You could say normal range for profits is -5% to +10%. When the company is people intensive, it basically means, that revenue is paid in salaries. For better salaries to be paid, profits must grow first. For profits to grow, existing people must perform better.…
The article addresses this. You're just talking about the early stages/small company part of the lifecycle. In my case, working for a 100-year-old manufacturing company, I looked around the cube farm one day, and realized there is a small army of people who's job it is to festoon every vertical space within eyesight, at scores of facilities across the globe, with flyers and promotionals and health insurance factoids and retirement plans and educational resources and on and on and on. (And maps of the cube warrens, because people thought wacky floorpans were cool 40 years ago.) Those are the definition of "Loser" jobs, and they're everywhere.
My company is so far down the article's referenced lifecycle that there are several large groups of people who copy information from the mainframe into Excel sheets, and then hand this over to another group who take that information, and put it back into the mainframe. And the "Clueless" have fought me, tooth and nail, to try to improve these kinds of barbarous workflows.
Re: 'Fake' Amazon workers defend company on Twitter
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is about common decency and basic human rights, not about entitlement. The fact that you are conflating the right to use restroom (a basic human need), at a consistent, non-excessive time interval (so that I do not experience a life-threatening state) to be some sort of entitlement is absolutely ridiculous. I really want to be clear. I am not doing that. I am genuinely not saying you are one of those people, an…
I’m sorry that you go through this. Next time, I will be more considerate when posting and tone it down. A lot of the issues you mention with young adults is a generational divide in the disabled community: the post-ADA generation and the pre-ADA generation. The post-ADA people never had to truly fight for their rights against people that had true actual contempt against their existence as disabled human beings. On s…
I had the privilege of working with one of the individuals who is featured in one of the iconic protest photos from the 1990 capitol crawl. I'm not as old as this person, and my personal experience with disability, and all of my professional experience are post ADA/AA.
Listening to her story about life in the 50's and 60's and her experience with being (in her words) "institutionalized in hell" was just startling. It really put things into perspective for my professional career, and honestly, I can say that one day had more of an impact on my personal and professional trajectory than most other things I've done.
It's still socially acceptable to mock and discriminate based on disability. People do it all the time. It's just. I don't know what the word is. Terrible doesn't seem strong enough. It's ridiculous.
I don't know that there is a reason for me telling this story, other than to agree with your last sentence.
The problem that I've run into, though, is that those individuals who really could make a splash - in my profession (higher ed), these tend to be folks on the autism spectrum who do not fit into stodgy, higher education 'conventional' expectations - do not have the know-how or the tools or the want to make a real flashy impact. They're afraid of social and economic consequences for speaking up. About half of my job is working with these folks to change systems and modify work/study spaces to implement universal design; for me, neuro-atypical universal design is the hardest to pin-down.
That's what makes being sued all the time such a pain in the ass. It's always by someone who is self-diagnosed, and someone who leans into the 'perceived' part of disability definition. Maybe I'm getting too in the weeds here.
Anyway. Not really sure what the point of all of this was, other than to say, thank you for the discourse. I appreciate it.
Re: 'Fake' Amazon workers defend company on Twitter
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
My hope is that it all seems like a joke to the youngsters, and they don't take any of it seriously. In other words, they know its a lie but share it anyway because it's funny to do so and a lie has a group momentum that can crush you if you stand in its way, so why bother? Look at gay marriage - the lie that it's akin to beastiality, or the lie that it will ruin straight marriate, these are lies that are actually qu…
everyone supports things they don’t necessarily believe is ‘truth’. it’s why political discussions are often tiresome and distracting. they posit that one side believes a falsehood (like the election was stolen, masks will save the world, or qanon anything) and then argues about that incessantly, rather than understanding the underlying emotions and motivations and then having conversations based on those understandi…
My sense is that there are a lot of people who literally believe the election was stolen. I don’t know how we could tell if people believe what they are saying.
Re: 'Fake' Amazon workers defend company on Twitter
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your implication is that Bezos was inconsequential to the creation of all that brand new wealth. Surely you don't actually believe that and this is just your ideological rhetoric to further your politicized beliefs?
False dichotomy - they never said he was inconsequential, just that his workers have done the majority of the work - which is objectively true. If Bezos didn't need those workers - if he genuinely created every cent of value in his empire on his own, picked and boxed and delivered every book himself - why did he ever hire anybody?
The difference is that you could replace the workers with other bodies and the wealth would still have been created. Replacing Bezos would mean Amazon wouldn’t even exist.