Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 270 posts

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#221

Post by oh_sigh »

whiteboarder wrote: post #190
russelluresti wrote: post #178

I love how the start of this article reads like something out of Character Assassination 101. Step 1: start by bringing up something negative about a person that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. Okay, so the guy resigned because he did something bad. How does that make what he experienced while there not true? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. And the admission of fraud isn't a "crucial piece of conte…

And the fraud thing doesn't even look to be true. The NYT writer responded and said that was false.

Do you have a link to the response? That seems like a pretty serious allegation to drop. Also, how would the reporter know? Are they just trusting the Olsen guy?

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#222

Post by cthalupa »

hnamazon123 wrote: post #214
ska wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but statements like: "This is typical of the left wing." Can at best undermine whatever point you are trying to make.

That was in fact a point I was making. Journalists lying to support a narrative is an extremely damaging trend that has taken hold on the left and it should be pointed out whenever it happens. This of course happens on the right but it is not moralized or justified in the same way.

He's saying that your detour into politics is damaging to your narrative.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#223

Post by cwilkes »

FussyZeus wrote: post #78
TravelTechGuy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please look at the bigger picture: this is Amazon telling it's current (and future?) employees: if you ever say anything bad about us, all your records will go public, and our head of PR will use any inconsideration in them to argue that your opinion is invalid. Fraud may have been the outlier case here: he's also outing reviews of other people whose opinions he/his employers don't like. That's one way to deal with w…

Two things: - I have zero problem with a company releasing info pertaining the character of an employee. - If you're an employee doing your job honestly, you shouldn't either.

I have zero problem with a company releasing info pertaining the character of an employee.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for. That if a person complains about a company that company can instead of replying to the issue just bring up things it thinks are wrong with the character of an employee? I'm not sure how that makes anything healthier.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#224

Post by dragonwriter »

Nadya wrote: post #218
vidarh wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if you specified it being by "US standards". A lot of us live in places where NYT would be seen as quite right wing.

The Washington Post ranks it left-leaning up there with Al Jeezera which is so far left I can't stand to read it. >A lot of us live in places where NYT would be seen as quite right wing. Sweden? Half joking, but the "standing so far left that even the left looks right" is something I mentioned in another reply. I don't think being an extreme-left makes slight-left any less left. I don't feel it is a Fox News "Liberal…

> The Washington Post ranks it left-leaning

The 21st century Washington Post is pretty strongly right-leaning, and in 2014 visibly shifted farther to the right, so I'm not sure that says much.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#225

Post by dragonwriter »

Nadya wrote: post #130
swehner wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling the NYT left-wing is pretty amusing.

Thinking the NYT isn't left-wing shows more how far left you must stand. Even the NYT calls itself liberal/left. Even after 11 years - and as an independent - I see the NYT as decidedly left. >“Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper wi…

> Even the NYT calls itself liberal/left.

And the North Korean government calls itself "Democratic".

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#226

Post by kazinator »

russelluresti wrote: post #178

I love how the start of this article reads like something out of Character Assassination 101. Step 1: start by bringing up something negative about a person that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. Okay, so the guy resigned because he did something bad. How does that make what he experienced while there not true? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. And the admission of fraud isn't a "crucial piece of conte…

> How does that make what he experienced while there not true?

It doesn't make it true or false, of course. What it does (if true) is make his report that such a thing happened less credible.

This is because fraud is a form of dishonesty, closely related to the telling of lies.

Also, being fired for wrongdoing (again, if that is true) creates the basis for an obvious bias. A person who was fired for wrongdoing can't be expected to be objective in reporting something about the former employer, even if they aren't trying to deceive. If that person's report is relayed, but the firing is concealed, the journalist is effectively concealing that bias.

Of course, Jay Carney (Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs at Amazon) has an obvious bias as well.

It's not clear whom to believe in this particular case---but biases and track records of fraud are generally relevant context.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#227

Post by anon203942309 »

Taking a high level approach here, there are a lot of details on both sides that could be disputed. But what remains true, is there is a reason this article was written about Amazon and not any of the many other tech companies out there. There is obviously an element of truth to the story, even if specific details can be disputed.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#228

Post by jsprogrammer »

theptip wrote: post #106
jsprogrammer wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it stands, Amazon/Carney have made a defamatory statement about an individual while providing no evidence of their claims. Claiming to have the results of an internal investigation is not evidence. Now, the entire investigation will need to be made public and scrutinized. This will likely allow legal entrance into all of Amazon, as all internal policies will need to be examined.

Defamation is by definition making a false statement that damages someone's reputation. You're claiming too much, since without any evidence, we can't tell whether the statements are true or false. If the statements Amazon made are false, then they are clearly defamatory, since they accuse the employee of criminal action. Do you really believe that Amazon's expensive lawyers didn't vet this post before it went out?

The statement should be assumed false until proven to be true by the accuser. A negative, public claim with zero evidence (nor even a promise of forthcoming evidence) should be viewed as defamatory.

>If the statements Amazon made are false, then they are clearly defamatory, since they accuse the employee of criminal action.

Here's a key piece. If Amazon is now claiming that their former employee took criminal actions:

1) Amazon took criminal actions.

2) Why reveal this now, instead of taking it to the proper authorities when it was discovered?

>Do you really believe that Amazon's expensive lawyers didn't vet this post before it went out?

Does it matter? Expensive does not mean they are competent, nor does it mean they are correct.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#229

Post by ska »

hnamazon123 wrote: post #214
ska wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but statements like: "This is typical of the left wing." Can at best undermine whatever point you are trying to make.

That was in fact a point I was making. Journalists lying to support a narrative is an extremely damaging trend that has taken hold on the left and it should be pointed out whenever it happens. This of course happens on the right but it is not moralized or justified in the same way.

   That was in fact a point I was making.
You may have chased a point there but you failed to make it.

In practice almost all such statements (I do not differentiate the style of partisanship) are some combination of disingenuous, lazy, or unintelligent. They are far too broad a brush to be on point, and far too divisive to use unadvisedly. So much so that there is a vanishingly small chance that the addition of such a statement was both necessary to your point, and improves your clarity of argument.

If your intent is intelligent discourse, compelling argument, or even just getting your opinion across clearly then use of this sort of language is actively counter to your purpose. Other aims exist, clearly.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#230

Post by tremon »

FussyZeus wrote: post #134
iterati wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who needs privacy when you have nothing to hide?

What you do at your workplace is by definition not private and shouldn't be. When you're on the company clock using the companies resources, the company should know what you're doing, and you should be ok with that. And if any of those things bother you, sorry, you're the problem.

Actually, what you do on company time is private. Or are you arguing that all meeting minutes should always be publicly accessible?

Also, you may have misunderstood the meaning of privacy. If I tell I'm terminally ill, it is no longer a private matter, since you know it too. Does that mean you telling the whole world is the right thing to do?

What you appear to be arguing is that your employer may choose to make public anything about you that happened on company time. That is a huge power imbalance, as you certainly don't have the same privilege about your employer, as you depend on them for your livelihood.

We have laws to remedy that power imbalance, that is why you have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in the workplace. It has nothing to do with "private" in itself. It is just one of the tools civilization has developed to prevent exploitation.

Post reply on HN