It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

Post by bryanlarsen » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 2:15 PM UTC

jvanderbot wrote: post #20

RGS1811 wrote: post #6

Democracy depends on public education about policy needs, not just electoral fundraising and stupid campaign ads. This video is a brilliant piece of political rhetoric, because it says “here’s an issue you should care about”, gets a little technical in ways normal people can understand, and then says “hey we want to do something to fix this, please join us in this effort”. It’s upbeat, it’s rational. It’s so good.

One issue that I have with many of these videos - what precisely is "this"? What issue is being addressed and what changes are proposed? It's entirely issue-adjacent slogans of "Amazon cheats, we will hurt them". And if I've learned anything from the most recent executive branch campaigns/elections, it's that vaguely defined "we'll get them" will get you elected but won't promise any meaningful changes other than pow…

Post by stackskipton » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 2:17 PM UTC

EugeneG wrote: post #59

stackskipton wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the problem, Amazon is not actually driving most of "Amazon" trucks you see the on the road. They are likely being driven and owned by "Joes Delivery Company LLC". If you look at the bottom of the truck, you will generally see the ACTUAL owner name. So if anything happens to worker or public is harmed, Joes Delivery Company is cutout fall person. So if worker or public sues or fined, the company folds, the as…

But what you described isn't a "problem" on it's own. Subcontracting is a thing. It's not a bad thing on its own. You're describing the "what" - you're not describing the "why" is that an issue... Is "Joe's delivery company" not already required to have liability insurance? Do we think this insurance is not big enough? Should we make it bigger for all delivery companies or do we need to single out Amazon's liability…

Post by dartharva » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 2:20 PM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #69

dartharva wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if I understand correctly, does New York want Amazon to not hand over jobs to local small businesses and just instead operate their own fleets? Are they pushing for higher consolidation (and eventual power) to Amazon?

Amazon has already consolidated that power. They’ve just done it in a way where they are able to shirk some liability and maintenance costs onto their employees. They’ve problem is that most of these are not really small businesses, in the same way that most Uber drivers aren’t really a small business. They don’t drive a generic truck, they drive an Amazon branded truck, often an Amazon financed truck, often a vehicl…

Post by mutinyy » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 2:28 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #32

EugeneG wrote: post #12

Honest question: what are the actual concrete issues where Amazon is shirking responsibility they would have otherwise had? Was there a specific court case where Amazon didn't pay what it would have otherwise? A workplace injury that would have been covered but otherwise wasn't? If these exist, are they systemic - i.e., does it happen more often here than it does with UPS or FedEx delivery workers? There are insinuat…

The people making propaganda (and yes, this is propaganda) knows that people are not rational but emotional. The video targets emotions - that amazon shirks responsibility is an emotional appeal. The hidden assumption is that there is some sort of responsibility that amazon ought to have, and that by shirking it, they're doing you harm. Instead of facts, they're listing things that give viewer a bad gut reaction like…

Post by EugeneG » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 2:29 PM UTC

StilesCrisis wrote: post #70

EugeneG wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"if people disagree with me, it's a conspiracy"

It's a different level of discourse--whataboutism and deflection--that tells the tale. Your comment too: it's glib and dismissive, refusing to engage seriously.