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

Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

aboutamazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 581 posts

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#451

Post by fnimick »

rwalle wrote: post #413
skee8383 wrote: post #394

I haven't bought anything from Amazon in years and you shouldn't either. Buying things from them supports slave labor, union busting, and low wages.

Wow, that sounds very privileged and condescending. "And you shouldn't either"? I'm sorry I can't do that, so can't many other people. Despite all the problems, in general, Amazon is still the most convenient and accessible place to buy things with relatively good customer service. In some cases it's the only place to buy certain products. If you can live in a bubble without Amazon, great for you, but don't preach ot…

"If you can buy the things you need not through Amazon, you should do so." Is that better?

I really struggle to find an example of something that you can only buy on Amazon, short of relisted aliexpress garbage that you should be avoiding anyway out of safety concerns.

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#452

Post by yunwal »

scubbo wrote: post #329
yunwal wrote: post #306

They also never supported smile donations from the mobile app for no good reason, so it was always pretty clear to me that it was nothing more than a PR stunt/tax write off.

This is not correct in the US. Don't know what country you're in.

Whoops, looks like it launched on the mobile app in Oct. 2020. I haven’t bought from Amazon for 4 years or so. Should have checked nothing had changed, but I’m unable to edit my comment.

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#453

Post by moate »

minsc_and_boo wrote: post #406
fsckboy wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think the sins of Amazon are any worse than most other major U.S. retailers. monopolies are bad, for consumers and for competitors. Even if you build your monopoly "fairly" by inventing a better mousetrap, putting the competition out of business is a reward that that is unfair and does not belong to the owner of the mousetrap. For example, Amazon could be split into 3 smaller Amazon mousetraps that compete…

>Even if you build your monopoly "fairly" by inventing a better mousetrap, putting the competition out of business is a reward that that is unfair and does not belong to the owner of the mousetrap. Antitrust laws exist to protect consumers, and if you're forcing consumers to buy inferior mousetraps, you're not helping.

Got it, so the issue isn’t anti-trust law. It’s IP law that, by its very nature, forces people to produce inferior mousetraps.

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#454

Post by whoopdeepoo »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #352

I think this is a little short-sighted on Amazon's part. PTA/PTOs were onboarding loyal Amazon customers via Amazon Smile because of the fundraising. In the last PTO I was involved with, Smile accounted for about 2% of our donations ($3000/year = ~$150K in household spending from our school). To put that in perspective, about 90% of our $150K annual fund raise was direct donations from parents and local businesses, A…

Kinda off topic but why do grade school kids need a MacBook air?

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#455

Post by [deleted] »

Spivak wrote: post #446
josteink wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s just plain rhetoric at this point. Anyone not actively supporting trans-rights these days are effectively labelled a “hater” or transphobic. Essentially the trans-activist doing their best to gaslight the situation and get as much chilling effect as possible. It’s dishonest, undemocratic and should be enough reason for most reasonable people to distrust them. And yeah. I’m transphobic for posting this, obviously…

This isn't rhetoric, the LGB Alliance isn't some group that just happens to not focus on T of LGBT. They're a group that wants the T dropped from LGBT, that believes, advocates for, and fights for legislation that defines trans men as women and vice versa. They were literally established in opposition to LGBT groups supporting trans people and still are. There is no gaslighting whatsoever, one of the co-founders lite…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#456

Post by gggk »

Spivak wrote: post #446
josteink wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s just plain rhetoric at this point. Anyone not actively supporting trans-rights these days are effectively labelled a “hater” or transphobic. Essentially the trans-activist doing their best to gaslight the situation and get as much chilling effect as possible. It’s dishonest, undemocratic and should be enough reason for most reasonable people to distrust them. And yeah. I’m transphobic for posting this, obviously…

This isn't rhetoric, the LGB Alliance isn't some group that just happens to not focus on T of LGBT. They're a group that wants the T dropped from LGBT, that believes, advocates for, and fights for legislation that defines trans men as women and vice versa. They were literally established in opposition to LGBT groups supporting trans people and still are. There is no gaslighting whatsoever, one of the co-founders lite…

The reason they are for LGB only, explicitly dropping the T, is because modern transgender activism redefines homosexuality to be attraction between people of the same gender identity, rather than the same sex.

As a result, you have situations like, for example, males identifying as lesbians expecting actual female lesbians to be open to dating them, and accusing them of transphobia if they decline. This is a problem as by the usual/previous definitions, the former are heterosexual males who are imposing themselves on homosexual females.

This sort of thing is what the LGB Alliance was set up to oppose, given that most other gay rights organisations (Stonewall in particular) have fully immersed themselves in the ideology of gender identity.

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#458

Post by KWD »

AdamH12113 wrote: post #388

I like the idea behind Amazon Smile but the execution is a bit underwhelming. I've spent tens of thousands of dollars at Amazon since joining Amazon Prime, but I've only generated $98.66 in donations -- a fraction of a percent. That's worse than just rounding up the price to the nearest dollar. What's the point? I get that Amazon's retail profit margins are terrible, but if they're only going to donate a totally insi…

My contribution through Smile was $102. I also thought this was very small for the amount I order, however, combined with other Smile customers donating to the same charity (Feeding America) Smile generated $846,092 in donations to the charity. That made me feel better about the combined effect.

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#459

Post by BeetleB »

gowld wrote: post #445
BeetleB wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you don't understand the basics of payroll tax. The SS tax that gets deducted from your paycheck is only half the amount. Employers are required to pay the other half. If you're self-employed, you pay both halves, and that is one of the penalties of being treated as self employed.

That's just an accounting/presentation gimmick. Mathematically, it would be the same if the deduction was 0% or 100% shown in paycheck, instead of 50%.

So you're saying it's fair to say employers pay payroll tax?

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#460

Post by drumttocs8 »

nicklevin wrote: post #2

There were seemingly odd hoops for customers to jump through to have their purchases qualify for Smile. Didn't type in the 'smile' URL? Too bad, no donation for you. One of the oddest was requiring push notifications in order for mobile purchases to count ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21233815 ).

That’s because smile was invented as a way to bypass having to pay Google for the referral link; incentivize people to retype the link before actually buying it was the ultimate goal.
Post reply on HN