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

241–250 of 270 posts

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

#241

Post by kazinator »

oh_sigh wrote: post #216
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 would you be able to sue someone who said that they saw a lot of people crying at their desk? How could you prove that didn't happen?

Suppose that it's a fabrication. You could hire some independent company (e.g. Gallup or whoever) to conduct a confidential company-wide survey to determine how many employees have seen someone crying at their desk (or did so themselves), and approximately how many times in the past N years for some N. If the survey turned up results close to zero, that would support a case that the former employee is making it up. (Of course, subject to the limitation that the survey would only include current employees.)

There is also the principle that the burden of proof is on the one making a claim, and not on those who disbelieve. Lots of people cried on their desks? A few names, or it didn't happen.

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

#242

Post by vidarh »

Nadya wrote: post #210
benten10 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So I'm being downvoted for pointing out that a liberal newspaper calls itself liberal? Next thing I know I'll be getting downvoted for calling Trump a right-wing presidential candidate. I can't downvote, but I assume you're being downvoted for calling a relatively centrist paper left-wing. Perhaps if you'd said 'liberal'/'left-leaning', the downvotes would have been lesser? Who, in your opinion, is a centrist-ish pa…

A paper that calls itself liberal is not centrist unless they are not allowed to define themselves . When an editor goes as far as saying "If you think we're playing it down the middle you're reading with your eyes closed" that's the exact opposite of an unbiased centrist paper. That's openly stating their liberal slant in an "you're an idiot if you don't think we're liberal" sort of way. This isn't my opinion this i…

> A paper that calls itself liberal is not centrist unless they are not allowed to define themselves

By this argument, North Korea is democratic (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea). Of course what people call themselves does not define their position if they act in opposition to it.

> It is my opinion that the general public has shifted so far to the left in the past 10-15 years

US voters still vote to the right of what they did during the Reagan years. It's not that long ago that Obama would have fit solidly in the Republican party. The idea that the general public in the US has shifted far to the left is just bizarre.

Consider that e.g. Obamas healthcare policies are not far off from policies proposed by Nixon 40 years ago, and that the level of horrified response to any kind of tax rises of Republicans these days would have had them up in arms over people like Reagan (and it's quite funny to see them try to explain away Reagan's various tax rises).

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

#243

Post by russelluresti »

kazinator wrote: post #226
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…

What you're talking about is literally the ad hominem fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

I understand that people perceive a connection between someone's character and the things they experience and perceive. That's the entire reason character assassination is used. Because it's effective. But it's wrong. It's proven wrong. It's a fallacy.

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

#244

Post by lightbritefight »

exodust wrote: post #187
danso wrote: post #129

The NYT editor in chief has responded via Medium: https://medium.com/@NYTimesComm/dean-baquet-responds-to-jay-... > In response to your posting on Medium this morning, I want to reiterate my support for our story about Amazon’s culture. In your posting — as well as in a series of recent email exchanges with me — you contested the article’s assertion that many employees found Amazon a tough place to work. Specifically…

Grabs popcorn . Olson is clinging to a lie, trying to defend his reputation. Notice how he tries to blame Amazon for his departure, the "revolving series of bosses" and "overwhelmed" with work. "He and others couldn't keep up". Deflection. He's doing his best to construct a version of events where he is one of the innocents, caught up in the nasty Amazon shit-storm. I bet he got a shock to see Amazon reveal his fraud…

>I bet he got a shock to see Amazon reveal his fraudulent activity in a medium post! You think Amazon would make such a claim if it weren't true?

So your stance is "it must be true, because it would be really stupid of them if it wasen't?"

I think its equally valid to say they are acting stupidly, and counting on dollars and cents to keep any trouble off their door.

The truth is, they have just claimed the above. They pressed no charges, and have provided no documentation to sustain it. Right now, they have no more proof then him, and have a strong reason (redeeming their reputation though mudslinging) to say that he was a bad man, so his opinion doesn't matter. Of course,as the NYT responds, they interviewed way more people than just the ones Amazon cherry picked to respond too, and those people all disagree with the new Amazon spin.

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

#245

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#246

Post by pacificmint »

jazzyk wrote: post #56
et2o wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, Amazon offers pretty substantial service improvement from just about any other online retailer. $50/year for unlimited 1-day shipping?

Prime is $99/year for two day free shipping.

Maybe GP is in another country? What he mentions sounds very much like Prime in Germany for example (50 euros, free next day delivery).

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

#247

Post by kazinator »

kazinator wrote: post #226
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…

I'd like to to address a somewhat unfairly flagged sibling comment by russelluresti, on the topic of the ad hominem fallacy.

Disbelieving someone because of a bias or a past dishonesty isn't the ad hominem fallacy at all.

Ad hominem refers to a declaration that an argument is right or wrong based on the identity or attributes of the person making the argument, rather than its content, and relevant references.

The disbelief in a report based on the nature of its source isn't a declaration that it is false. It is rationally justified prudence.

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

#248

Post by jsprogrammer »

caskance wrote: post #165
jsprogrammer wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they won't have a hard time retaining and hiring quality employees if all employees know that if you ever speak about your time at Amazon, some SVP for XXX might start selectively leaking portions of your personnel records? >But I think if you're fired for fraud Sure, but this is only a claim that Amazon/Carney have made. They have presented zero evidence for the claim. Also, Amazon/Carney released information ab…

If you're a quality employee that is not interested in disparaging former employers, as most people are not, I don't see why it would affect your decision. It's an appropriate response to what the employee did. If Amazon had an employee arrested for embezzlement, I would not take that as a sign that I shouldn't work there or else I might get arrested.

> It's an appropriate response to what the employee did.

Sorry, but you have no idea what the employee did. The employee claims such allegations had never been made to him and that they do not pertain to him.

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

#249

Post by zo1 »

pm24601 wrote: post #176
zo1 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may have been inappropriate to "share" some of the evaluations, even though they were so very vague and non-descript. But, it's also possible that the employee voided any contract between themselves and Amazon by speaking to a third party (NYT) about the inner workings of Amazon.

Amazon just did real harm to Mr Olsen's employability. To be so casual about this is typical Amazon. Also this is classic ad hominem attack. If the message is true attack the messenger. Jay wouldn't need to attack Mr. Olson personally if the message was wrong. Why does Jay lead with an attack on Mr. Olson? Could it be that that is the best he can do?

I wouldn't quite call it an ad-hominem. In my opinion, when having to rely on second-hand information, you should take into consideration that individual's motives, and possible biases that may manifest as a result. Of course, the same applies to Amazon.

Short of the actual, detailed facts from an impartial source (apparently not the NYT it seems) we're forced to make assumptions based on individual's personal experiences / comments. Maybe Amazon indeed was a horrible place to work at...for those individuals that complained. But if we're at that level, surely we should consider motives/personal circumstances?

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

#250

Post by oh_sigh »

kazinator wrote: post #241
oh_sigh wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you be able to sue someone who said that they saw a lot of people crying at their desk? How could you prove that didn't happen?

Suppose that it's a fabrication. You could hire some independent company (e.g. Gallup or whoever) to conduct a confidential company-wide survey to determine how many employees have seen someone crying at their desk (or did so themselves), and approximately how many times in the past N years for some N. If the survey turned up results close to zero, that would support a case that the former employee is making it up. (…

Do you really think that has any opportunity of being a successful strategy in court?
Post reply on HN