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

A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 182 posts

Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals

#81

Post by WillPostForFood »

flixic wrote: post #46
WillPostForFood wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the "campaign" against Amazon takes place in EU courtrooms where no rival company is focusing our attention on their transgressions. It seems unlikely that competitors have no influence on what the EU chooses to pursue in courts.

Being from EU with decent contact to EU parliament... EU officials really don’t need much encouragement. The passion to regulate everything burns deeply.

Like with law enforcement, it is a target rich environment. There are many more possible cases to litigate than time or personnel to do it. So cases get chosen for a variety of reasons. Public good, self promotion, lobbying by competitors, etc...

Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals

#82

Post by benologist »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #81
flixic wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being from EU with decent contact to EU parliament... EU officials really don’t need much encouragement. The passion to regulate everything burns deeply.

Like with law enforcement, it is a target rich environment. There are many more possible cases to litigate than time or personnel to do it. So cases get chosen for a variety of reasons. Public good, self promotion, lobbying by competitors, etc...

The most likely way it happened was a multitude of complaints received in workers-rights or competition institutions because that's a formal way to complain about companies doing unfair stuff, and when Amazon abuses their workforce or vendors it affects a LOT of people with the right to turn to these institutions. These institutions will default to having paperwork supporting their process and decisions as they routinely need to use the legal system to solve problems. I think it is very unlikely a competitor could orchestrate these consequences for Amazon's actions.

Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals

#83

Post by october_sky »

_verandaguy wrote: post #32

I'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.

> I'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.

No they don't. You're thinking of the Washington Post.

Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals

#84

Post by seph-reed »

wongarsu wrote: post #50
Porthos9K wrote: post #22

I'm surprised more cyberpunk authors didn't anticipate that wars between corporations wouldn't be fought using hackers or "street samurai", but with teams of propagandists competing to do a better job of bullshitting the general public. Yes, I'm calling marketers and advertisers propagandists. As far as I'm concerned, marketing and advertising are nothing but private-sector psyops.

This world truly is a boring dystopia.

Amazing quote. I love the concept of "Boring Dystopia." Might have to name a song that.

Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals

#85

Post by SmirkingRevenge »

guerrilla wrote: post #70
prepend wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That it is not abnormal doesn't make it okay. Just because something is normal doesn't mean something should be normal. Further, people don't think it should be this way there and how it is elsewhere has no bearing on that fact. This is whataboutism.

The point is, if you don't have the context, you are operating from a position of ignorance. What if conditions do suck and are terribly miserable at Amazon's warehouses? But... what if, despite that, the conditions are actually better than typical warehouse jobs? In that case, by singling out Amazon, you are actually punishing them for having better warehouse conditions than anyone, and helping their competitors where the workers are worse off.

Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals

#87

Post by Zenst »

opportune wrote: post #15

It’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…

Yes, in the 80's we would call such things cheesy, today they are the standard. Just we kinda accept it for what it is, equally accept that some people will fall for the cheese and enjoy the cheese. So it carries on as the norm. Then, when you get a good, fair - non-brain insulting advert or product, your like just wow - thank you. Though they can alienate most of the cheese lovers out there.

But I'm sure there is some science behind it, might be the case that marketing whent - lets target the average IQ and go for the masses and with that. We get lots of cheese.

As an aside - some aspects of today's marketing remind me in part of an old TV show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_(TV_series)

Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals

#88

Post by scarface74 »

wolco wrote: post #58
cameronbrown wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing both is a waste of time and mental energy, neither of which are infinite. Amazon will not change if the law doesn't. Pick your battles.

Brand protection is important for a customer facing company. The right campaign will enact change quicker.

It’s not as important as people think. Most people know that Facebook is a privacy invasive train wreck but people use it anyway.

Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals

#89

Post by andreilys »

high_5 wrote: post #66
opportune wrote: post #15

It’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…

That's what postmodern era is. End of belief. IMO that's the fruit of scepticism as a way of life which has become well entrenched in the modern, well educated societies. As if we're in another stage of consequences of eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (as a society).

I do wonder what an end game looks like for a society that has no strong unified set of beliefs or meaning. Citizens left to themselves to decide meaning (with these “decisions” often co-opted by influence professionals whose job is to inject values and extract cash from consumers)

Re: A ‘Grass-Roots’ Campaign to Take Down Amazon Is Funded By Its Biggest Rivals

#90

Post by organsnyder »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #19
deogeo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely the campaign should be to change the law, but if you're looking to also assign blame, massive corporations had a hand in writing the tax code.

Those poor politicians, we can't expect them to read laws before voting on them. They must of gotten confused because they have so many checks to cash and speaking gigs to preform.

The way the system is set up, most politicians don't think they have an alternative. Unless you're a standout star in a high-profile race, your election prospects are inexorably linked with your ability to fundraise (as well as your party affiliation, if you survive the primary). If you're not cashing checks, your opponents will.

It's the same argument you hear from businesses and affluent individuals: "If I don't [pay my employees as little as possible | take advantage of every tax loophole I can find | spend thousands of dollars lobbying congress | pollute the environment], my competitors will."

Of course, those excuses ring hollow when those same individuals aren't in favor of changing a broken system. Any politician that complains about fundraising but is not in favor of campaign finance reform is a hypocrite, IMHO.

Post reply on HN