Bezos vs Ellison, now that is a good supervillain showdown.
A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals
31–40 of 182 posts
Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals
#32I'm skeptical of the substance of this article because WSJ and Amazon share an owner.
I typically like the WSJ's reporting, but this honestly feels like a topic they should be recusing themselves from.
Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals
#33It’s funny because the whole “Amazon ambassador” thing is just Amazon doing the same thing in reverse. What I hate most about the 21st century is how almost nothing feels genuine anymore. The news, any sort of campaign, even “science” in a lot of cases are just people using money to tell us what to think. Maybe it’s been like this for decades and we’re just now waking up to it, but regardless it just makes it all fee…
Astroturfing has been happening for as long as I've been online.
Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals
#34Does Oracle really think they are competing with Amazon over a $10B government contract? That’s like Peugeot thinking they are competing with Volvo for a shipping fleet or something.
Yes they are absolutely delusional when it comes to their competitiveness.
Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals
#35This is why I tend to try to keep a healthy skepticism about a great deal of the negative press on Amazon's warehouse working conditions, pushes to unionize, etc. So much of it lacks real context needed to actually inform, and just looks like click-bait or campaigns to drive negative sentiment, or to inhibit their ability to perform. And really, that should I guess be the default way one consume's news in general, no…
While skeptism is always healthy, a lot of the flack Amazon is getting seems pretty legit. Competitors might be piling in it and pushing it under the spotlight、even exaggerate parts of it, but of lot of Amazon’s operations is still provably shitty. For instance what part of the warehouse working condition do you think is completely fabricated ?
The part where somehow that’s abnormal for warehouse workers.
Warehouse work is hard and low paid. Working for Amazon is working for one of the best warehouse jobs but that doesn’t make it easy work. I’ve seen article about long days and injuries and such and they never bring up industry hours or wages or injury rates. So I suspect they are negative PR.
So I don’t think they are fabricated, but they are misleading.
Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals
#36I'm skeptical of the substance of this article because WSJ and Amazon share an owner. I typically like the WSJ's reporting, but this honestly feels like a topic they should be recusing themselves from.
Did Bezos buy WSJ in addition to the Post? I thought Fox owned WSJ.
Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals
#37It’s funny because the whole “Amazon ambassador” thing is just Amazon doing the same thing in reverse. What I hate most about the 21st century is how almost nothing feels genuine anymore. The news, any sort of campaign, even “science” in a lot of cases are just people using money to tell us what to think. Maybe it’s been like this for decades and we’re just now waking up to it, but regardless it just makes it all fee…
It is scary how much more mechanized and automated its become and the reach via the smartphone interface terminals,
but at the meta level, I think most people growing up with the internet know to a fundamental level that they are being manipulated and tracked.
Alas they may be resigned to it as a reality, but people in the older generations are so gullible to frighteningly basic propaganda.
Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals
#38Idk why they don’t just slam them on lead paint and fake products. You could make a fucking Super Bowl level ad and do serious damage to amazon on real issues.
They need to accept the ad as well. There is a lot of censorship in advertising more than you would expect.
Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals
#39I'm skeptical of the substance of this article because WSJ and Amazon share an owner. I typically like the WSJ's reporting, but this honestly feels like a topic they should be recusing themselves from.
You’re thinking of the Washington Post. WSJ is a Murdoch property.
Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals
#40It’s funny because the whole “Amazon ambassador” thing is just Amazon doing the same thing in reverse. What I hate most about the 21st century is how almost nothing feels genuine anymore. The news, any sort of campaign, even “science” in a lot of cases are just people using money to tell us what to think. Maybe it’s been like this for decades and we’re just now waking up to it, but regardless it just makes it all fee…
I fear that previously, trying to use money to tell people what to think was ineffective or inefficient, but now the cents-to-sentiments exchange rate is tipping too far.
When communication was one-to-one, you could hire someone to visit a target in person and advocate your position, which made sense only if your revenue from the advocacy was greater than the cost of the employee. Most of the time you wouldn't even start to do this because it would be dumb.
But now communication is now one-to-thousands and it's even cheaper to publish an idea than it used to be. If you can spend $100 to influence 10,000 people to give you $0.10 on average, that will be stupidly profitable, and greedy/amoral corporations will spend that money until the ROI is down to break-even.