91–100 of 387 posts
This is a gem. One person vs an army of faces all engaging in the same conversation. Borg indeed.
I doubt these are bots. One of them says: > I don't get compensated per tweet. I get paid $15/hr whether I am answering tweets or out on the floor stowing. I do this 2 days a week and 2 days a week I stow. While I think it's weird that Amazon is doing this, I also doubt that the warehouse jobs are bad jobs. I've done manual labor for less than $15/hr and I'd much rather have a job like that than, say, a job in a rest…
Poor 20-something grandfather Rafael also identifies as a nana and as a middle-aged woman. https://mobile.twitter.com/TheKenChilds/status/1161847717397...
I'd guess that Rafael didn't log out of the app (or the nana forgot to do that).
... imagine this the other way. Imagine that "@rulesObeyer" is the one with the agenda. Imagine RO is paid by a competitor to spread misinformation and "stir the pot", then re-read the thread. Suddenly RO seems incapable of reason or adapting in the face of clear evidence against its assertions. It makes for a fun read. (Similarly, "anyone condemning this comment or defending @rulesObeyer must just be @rulesObeyer in…
I, for one, welcome our lizard overlords.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That jumped out at me too. My reading was the implication that if there was a union, you would lose that. It seems like a common anti-union talking point, from what I've seen at Walmart and Whole Foods.
In my experience being in a union (against my preferences) it’s not implied, but a fact. Unions have sued their own members for speaking with managers about grievances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely. We're even psychologically inclined to agree with RO because "it" is "fighting the good fight" and "fighting The Man", etc. Whether she's legitimately exactly who she says she is or "it" is just a next-level PR AI whose sole purpose is harming Amazon, we have little way of knowing, especially outside this specific example.
On the other hand, this obfuscatory conversation and the allegation that random individual accounts are paid anti-corporate is one that adds to the weight for "inanutshellus may be an Amazon shill account, or at least employee"
Can somebody explain how to parse the page linked here? This seems like deeplinking Intl the middle of a conversation. Side note: it feels like Twitter specifically has done immeasurable damage to the discourse. Why does the communication have to be presented so confusingly? To an outsider it seems like it’s to create maximum outrage/confusion/dopamine response. That’s much scarier to me than a customer service team.
Just... scroll up for the earlier parts of the thread?
Reminds me of Unity from that Rick and Morty episode https://rickandmorty.fandom.com/wiki/Unity
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not real, they're Twitter chat bots. That Amazon thinks this was a good PR move is truly astonishing.
It’s astonishing people are so confident these are bots. No real evidence of that and it’s more likely they’re real. Occam’s razor.
Anyone remember that "virtual boyfriend" service that had rotating people behind the "virtual boyfriend" for the same person? It feels like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That jumped out at me too. My reading was the implication that if there was a union, you would lose that. It seems like a common anti-union talking point, from what I've seen at Walmart and Whole Foods.
In my experience being in a union (against my preferences) it’s not implied, but a fact. Unions have sued their own members for speaking with managers about grievances.