Why is Amazon Taunting Politicians? (nytimes.com) 110
Confronting progressive U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, Amazon officials tweeted "the kind of bad-ittude you rarely see from a major corporation," writes Kara Swisher.
"Here's what was more extraordinary — and revealing — to me: One of the most powerful companies in the world could not take criticism from politicians without acting like one of the biggest babies in the world..." But why? [I]t all felt oddly emotional and risky, which is why it was clear that the decision to launch such attacks could have been made only by someone who never suffers when mistakes are made: Mr. Bezos.
Why would he take such an approach?
I don't think his intention was to influence the union vote in Alabama. Instead, the goal was to goad progressives into proposing legislation around things like data privacy and a $15 federal minimum wage that Mr. Bezos knows cannot pass without being watered down and, thus, made less dangerous to giants like Amazon. After gaining immense power in the pandemic and becoming one of the best-liked brands around, the company is now saying to Washington legislators, who have dragged their feet and held endless and largely useless hearings about how to deal with tech: I dare you to regulate us.
For Amazon, weak regulation would certainly be much better than having to talk about the very real human toll that free shipping might have on its workers. It's an attitude that we will see adopted by a lot more tech leaders who are going to try to use the momentum for regulation in their favor, rather than let it run over them. In a recent congressional hearing, for example, Facebook's chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, sheepishly proposed changes to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which gives platforms broad immunity for content posted on their sites. Many observers felt, though, that Mr. Zuckerberg's proposals were a smoke screen that would ultimately benefit Big Tech companies like Facebook.
It's high-risk, but possibly high reward, which has been Mr. Bezos' brand for his entire career, even before he was armed with all this power and money.
"Here's what was more extraordinary — and revealing — to me: One of the most powerful companies in the world could not take criticism from politicians without acting like one of the biggest babies in the world..." But why? [I]t all felt oddly emotional and risky, which is why it was clear that the decision to launch such attacks could have been made only by someone who never suffers when mistakes are made: Mr. Bezos.
Why would he take such an approach?
I don't think his intention was to influence the union vote in Alabama. Instead, the goal was to goad progressives into proposing legislation around things like data privacy and a $15 federal minimum wage that Mr. Bezos knows cannot pass without being watered down and, thus, made less dangerous to giants like Amazon. After gaining immense power in the pandemic and becoming one of the best-liked brands around, the company is now saying to Washington legislators, who have dragged their feet and held endless and largely useless hearings about how to deal with tech: I dare you to regulate us.
For Amazon, weak regulation would certainly be much better than having to talk about the very real human toll that free shipping might have on its workers. It's an attitude that we will see adopted by a lot more tech leaders who are going to try to use the momentum for regulation in their favor, rather than let it run over them. In a recent congressional hearing, for example, Facebook's chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, sheepishly proposed changes to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which gives platforms broad immunity for content posted on their sites. Many observers felt, though, that Mr. Zuckerberg's proposals were a smoke screen that would ultimately benefit Big Tech companies like Facebook.
It's high-risk, but possibly high reward, which has been Mr. Bezos' brand for his entire career, even before he was armed with all this power and money.
Because politicians are children (Score:4, Insightful)
and it's best to communicate with them using language they understand.
It's not just presidents and powerful senators and congressmen who speak in childish hyperbole these days. The rot has percolated down into, oh I don't know, the CDC whose director is crying about Impending Doom! while we are assured that Democrat administrations are run by cool analytical realists.
Re:Because politicians are children (Score:5, Insightful)
No, people are children, and politicians need to talk to them in a language they can understand, thus sounding themselves like children.
If you talk to the people who actually write the speeches politicians make on a regular basis, you'll find out that the golden rule those writers abide by is that they must assume that their audience has an average mental age of 11.
Re: Because politicians are children (Score:2, Interesting)
People who take time out of their day and go out of their way to listen to a politician give a speech don't have an *average* mental age of 11, they have a ceiling on their mental age of less than 11.
A properly functioning member of a properly functioning society shouldn't need to even think about government or politics. To the extent that I ever think of government or politics, it's almost always in the context of how they're stealing from me, how they're failing to perform one or more of the duties we by
Re: Because politicians are children (Score:2)
Politicians rail agains
Re: (Score:3)
We will always need government for the same reason we'll always need police and courts. Humans are shitty and their behavior needs to be moderated. For that same reason, the masses will always need to be fully aware of what the government is doing, why it's doing that, etc. There really has never been a time without government - even paleolithic tribes had rulers. Likewise there will never be a time when government just disappears, or magically works perfectly, unless we figure out how to make a perfect mac
Re: Because politicians are children (Score:1)
Re: Because politicians are children (Score:1)
Re:Because politicians are children (Score:5, Interesting)
No, people do not.
You may be too young to remember, but that is a rather new thing.
I grew over the years and decades. The more we look back, the more people were expected to act like adults. Even children.
You can still see it in more "primitive" countries in rural areas. Those kids seem amazingly adult to us. But it's just how a kid acts when his maturing hasn't been stifled by "protecting its childhood".
People *nowadays* think it's acceptable. Because it is accepted.
And that's the problem. If you treat them like they are 11, they will become 11. And then you have the audacity to say they must be treated like they are 11 "because" they act like that.
It's the entire problem with the industry. They never say no. They never set standards. They want the biggest target group possible, no matter what. And in the process, they are breeding spoiled retards. In the literal medical sense. And frankly, I think those who are truly pulling the strings in the right departments and management, know this, and do it deliberately, because it makes "clients" easier to handle. Livestock, kindergarten, almost the same thing.
If you want that to change, start treating them like adults. *With* the consequences. Because falling flat on your face a few times, standing back up by yourself, and learning what to do and what not, is part of growing up.
Re: (Score:1)
I was going to say that I think we may be seeing it happen already, at least here in the US. The falling flat on your face thing.
I was going to say I think the declining standard of living is the first fall, but really that's more like a kid getting his toy taken away, and not even for a good reason, just because the dad's an asshole.
I was going to say that Trump would be another fall on the face, but really he was just treated so unfair and anyway it was actually the Faucivirus and Jew lasers that blew up
I agree with the grandparent. (Score:2)
YOU get off MY lawn.
Re: (Score:3)
"it's best to communicate with them using language they understand"
That language would be cash, in other words contributions to their election campaigns.
Re: (Score:1)
Because they feel more powerful (Score:3)
Easy.
Re:Because they feel more powerful (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not power, it's tactics. Amazon's response is calculated to shift the debate onto ground more favorable to them. Here's the red flag: Amazon didn't even bother to argue that Warren's position was a bad idea. Instead Amazon *called her out*, blaming *her* for the loopholes she is criticizing.
Bullshitters love to shift the argument from what to do about something to whom to blame. That's because blame is the most emotionally charged way to frame any issue. That makes blame the bullshitter's home court. If Amazon made a case that tax evading loopholes were *good* for the country, people might actually think about the issue and come to the opposite conclusion.
It doesn't matter if the blame they're casting is obviously nonsensical. What they're after is a "hell yeah!" reaction. If you take the bait then they've got you. All they have to do is set the hook and reel you in.
Re: Because they feel more powerful (Score:2, Troll)
As much as a despise amazon as a company, I have to be on their side here. Why does amazon deserve blame for using the tax code that exists? Do you decline tax credits and deductions and pay more than youâ(TM)re legally required to? So anyway amazon is correct - Warren is whining about the tax code congress passed. She doesnâ(TM)t like it, she can shape changes to her preferences
Re: Because they feel more powerful (Score:1)
Re: Because they feel more powerful (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Again, it was Amazon that framed this as blame. Warren just pointed them out as an example.
Re: Because they feel more powerful (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It's an example of a loophole that unfairly benefits a business. She wasn't saying they should be prosecuted, she was saying that the loophole should be closed.
Re: Because they feel more powerful (Score:1)
Re: Because they feel more powerful (Score:2)
If that is how you see it, then look at it as Amazon just using Warren an example of a politician who makes the rules.
Re: Because they feel more powerful (Score:5, Insightful)
Which shows how effective Amazon's tactics here. You're not concerned at all about whether the rules are good or not, you're totally focused on the social media pissing match.
Re: (Score:2)
Undoing inproper moderation
Re: (Score:2)
" If Amazon made a case that tax evading loopholes were *good* for the country, people might actually think about the issue and come to the opposite conclusion."
This is only true if you don't benefit from the tax law. How do you feel about the mortgage interest deduction? In this case, Amazon is correct. They are following the rules. Ms. Warren and her colleagues are responsible for the rules.
Re: Because they feel more powerful (Score:2)
Re: Because they feel more powerful (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Following the rules" is irrelevant when you're arguing about what the rules *should be*.
Re: (Score:1)
Posting to undo slip on the mod option.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter if the blame they're casting is obviously nonsensical.
How is it nonsensical? You think Warren wants a simple flat tax or something?
Politicians are the ones who create the insanely complicated taxing regime that only large players like Amazon can really game effectively.
Because everybody hates politicians? (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazon is one of if not the largest company on earth. Everything they're is doing here is carefully thought out and focus group tested. They picked a strategy to manipulate the voting public based on that testing, and as near as I can tell it's working. Anti-Union sentiment is strong despite reams of evidence and research that Unions improve the standard of living of all Americans. Meanwhile a well respected economics professor can barely get a word in edgewise because she comes off like an annoying school marm.
Seriously, we as a nation really need to step back and work on our critical thinking skills if we can't see through this...
Re: (Score:2)
The strategy was effective, and it pushed Warren into the error of saying that Amazon couldn't heckle her. If she had said "can't intimidate" it would have been fine. But everyone can heckle everyone on Twitter (until you approach death-wishes, anyway). So they managed to make the schoolmarm look imperious.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I only dislike lobbyist politicians. The traitor kind.
Not the passionate kind that has become very rare nowadays.
Warren and Sanders used to be the latter kind. I'm not up to date of if they still are. But I'm assuming they are.
But I still think there's better solutions than politicians. (Democracy in a whole country is a delusion of something that doesn't work for groups beyond 100-150 people. So we call oligarchies with mock elections "democracy".)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie became a corp stooge in 2016 when he bent over for clinton and let them walk all over him.
Sanders is still championing the same kind of stuff he always has. Detecting the quarter of the wind and refusing to sail against it is not the same as bending over for an ass fucking.
Democracy works (Score:2)
To address your point (that it only works in small groups), that is incorrect. It works fine at the national level but it becomes a complex machine, and like any complex machine it needs regular maintenance. Not with that "blood of patriots" nonsense. Bleeding is easy. But instead with lots of difficult education and care iteration over complex systems.
Re:Democracy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Because everybody hates politicians? (Score:5, Insightful)
That really doesn't say anything about socialism itself, it says more about authoritarianism vs democracy. We don't have a great or maybe even good democracy in the US but we still do have a democracy, thus elections still produce candidates from somewhat, even if limited varying backgrounds.
Socialism is an economic system, not one of governance. Marx did not write much at all about government, most of what we wrote about was critique of capitalism.
Socialism can and should exist under a democratic system. You cannot just flip a switch and say "we socialist now" but social democratic policies such as a strong welfare state and systems are the path to that type of system.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama was president *because* of US-based oligarchy. Remember the 2008 bailouts?
He was one of the best things that ever happened to them.
Who do you think arranges all the big money for canidates if they return the favor? Why do you think the establishment strongly preferred Clinton over Sanders, or anyone else over Trump? Because the establishment strongly prefers those who are bought off and paid for.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon is one of if not the largest company on earth.
Not by anyone's measure.
If you go by assets or a mix of assets and sales [forbes.com], they're not in the top 20.
If you go by revenue [fortune.com], they're #9.
If you go by employees [fortune.com], they're #4, with less than half as many as Walmart. I guess this metric would make it in to 'one of the largest'.
They're worth a Trillion dollars (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that there are somewhere around ~40000 listed companies in the world, they are among the largest in the world using any of the metrics you mentioned. Any company on a top 100 list would be in the top 2.5 per mill. If we go by estimates of the unlisted companies in the world, the number increases to 100-200M. That would make anyone in the top 100 the one-percent of the one-percent of the one-percenter.
If your metric is "in the top three in any metric", then perhaps no.
But does it matter? They are
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress has a very low approval rating. It's safe and effective to make fun of them. There's been two threads here on /. now and 90% of the comments are defending Amazon over the politician.
Amazon is one of if not the largest company on earth. Everything they're is doing here is carefully thought out and focus group tested. They picked a strategy to manipulate the voting public based on that testing, and as near as I can tell it's working. Anti-Union sentiment is strong despite reams of evidence and research that Unions improve the standard of living of all Americans. Meanwhile a well respected economics professor can barely get a word in edgewise because she comes off like an annoying school marm.
I've seen enough bad decisions by big organizations to realize that major decisions are still made by humans, and humans can do dumb things.
Amazon's anti-union PR strategy isn't some finely tuned multi-pronged manipulation technique. It's some senior execs who are terrified of a union, and when they see one coming they keep demanding more and more aggressive action until it becomes counter-productive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Because everybody hates politicians? (Score:2)
It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd,
Re: (Score:3)
I did, but Bezos's newspaper called her a Russian asset and google pulled her ads during a debate.
Because they can (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me ask you, if you were hugely powerful and richer than God, wouldn't you taunt politicians?
Re:Because they can (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you could taunt them with the truth instead of resorting to lies, like laughing that no one ever pees in bottles.
When Amazon was new, I disliked them. Now that they've grown up, I hate them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I can't really imagine being that rich and wasting my time spewing hateful lies. It's really small-minded.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because I would know that it wasn't helpful for any goal, because I wouldn't be a fucking moron.
Taunting is nothing but childish lashing out on untreated triggers. It is not the behavior of a confident person in control of itself. And a known trigger that is unknown by the person is a perfect lever to control that person with. Because they will always predictably be triggered by it. You can play them like a piano.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask Jack Ma how well that turned out for him [wikipedia.org]...
Political factions (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sanders is one of, if not the most popular politician in the country. His presidential runs in 2016 and 2020 have shifted the Democrats Overton window leftward more than we have seen in decades, one of the primary factors we are seeing in terms of narrative shift away from neoliberalism to social democratic thinking. Not to say it's happening quickly or there is not pushback, neoliberalism still rules in Congress but we are seeing more and more progressive representatives winning seats and you have to gi
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on how you define "powerful" and I never made the claim that he was the "most powerful". Manchin is powerful because of the circumstances which put him in a pivotal vote position. Sanders is in charge of the Senate Budget Committee and has a very strong popular support in terms of grassroots organizing and fundraising. To say he's "powerless" was the original claim, one which is frankly just not true. It's easy to say that the fact that Amazon is choosing to engage at all with either of them
Re: (Score:2)
Sanders is one of the least popular, too.
Re: (Score:2)
By what metric?
https://morningconsult.com/senator-rankings/ [morningconsult.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sanders is one of, if not the most popular politician in the country.
Not with other politicians, he's not. Biden's about as charismatic as a wet rag, but he can wheel and deal, so he has a shot at doing something. Sanders has always been a loner in Washington.
Social Media Confidence Shield. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This.
It's not social media. It's anti-social media of cowardice.
If Bezos would have done that face-to-face, in the times before p.c.ness and before violence transitioned from bodily to mental, he would have gotten his face caved in. Big brawl and all. Or duel to the death.
And then all his billions would have been worth fuck-all.
Shallow arguments (Score:2)
It is easy to show how shallow a politician's arguments are when they are taunted into defending them. And, in a bumper-sticker simulation world like Twitter, it is very hard for anyone to defend their position coherently.
Answer: (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Jeff Bezos is a monopolistic asshole.
Next question?
Saul Alinsky tactics (Score:2)
This is the New Normal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for establishing it.
It wasn't the new normal. It isn't here. It never will be here.
But you, yes you, just *made* it the new normal for your sad world.
The nutjob on the street corner isn't a cultural leader until some moron comes along, puts a spotlight on him, and calls him that in front of everyone.
Yes, for Trump, you didn't do it. The mass-media did.
But for Amazon/Bezos, and for your world, you just did.
Glad I never have to travel to your world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but I wouldn't solely blame the formal president. Plenty of democrats had been taunting Trump the entire time that he was in office. Then you representatives like AOC who is one of the worst offenders of personal criticizing anyone with a policy that she disagrees with. Then there's Elizabeth Warren who I'd say ranks low-class right up there with Trump given her statements and personal vendettas.
I'm guessing that both sides have their fair share of crying, but I think democrats get a bit more press
Best-liked brands? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are confusing popularity, as in "used a lot" with popularity, as in "liked a lot".
Nobody likes Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
By nobody, I assume you just mean the people working there who want to unionize, and those who chose to work there over what they consider less-than-ideal covid conditions. I'm betting that most employees don't dislike them any more over their previous job.
Consumers like me love them. That's why they're so huge. Top tier streaming service, 2-day shipping on nearly everything, and an all-around hard-to-beat online shopping experience.
Modern day Pharaohs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Regulation is a Mote (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed and big corporations don't even bother with national laws these days, they get their staff to write treaties that politicians seem to love so much these days - why is that?
Anyway I don't think the summary is right about Amazon's motive... Maybe Bezos is considering running for president!
Amazon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the correct take.
Re: (Score:1)
Bezos is the bully. Anyone who disagrees with him is a prime target for him and his trolls.
Just look at his empires efforts to stop the workers in Alabama from voting to join a union. Most of his workers in Europe are in unions so why the hatred for his $15/hour wage slaves eh?
Re:Stand up to bullies (Score:4)
Warren and Sanders want Amazon to start paying some taxes. Hardly bullying. The laws and loopholes currently enjoyed by Amazon were created through lobbying efforts. They are of no benefit to anyone other than Amazon.
Like a big baby? Or a politician? (Score:1)
The reporter seems to think that when a politician shits on you the appropriate response is to smile and be nice.
That's why she gets paid less than a comparable man, because she's a pussy. Karma is for the meek.
why? (Score:1)
Why? (Score:3)
Simple really when you think about it.
Bezos thinks that he rules the world. As the richest man in the world, he might think that is already the case.
He hates (or worse) anyone who stands up to him. Bernie Sanders is on the side of the workers in Alabama therefore he is a person to be destroyed politically. The workers who want to unionize are a threat to him. His campaign to stop their voting is typical of a megalomaniac who desires total control and obedience from those in his employ.
I avoid using Amazon and have done for the past three years.
Re: (Score:2)
Bezos knows that "too big to jail" has been government policy for decades: In the past, the FTC went after monopolistic practices but corporate mega-mergers have turned the USA into cluster-fuck of oligopolies, duopolies and (government-backed) monopolies that buy politicians, write laws and manufacture propaganda to control the voters.
But government directly and immediately working for the corporations is a small piece of the problem. The large piece is government refusing to punish corporations. That
Re: (Score:2)
Bezos thinks that he rules the world.
Not even close. He controls a pile of dollars. He doesn't control the people with the guns, aka police/soldiers. He is absurdly wealthy, but he couldn't afford to build and run an aircraft carrier, much less the jets and helicopters that go with it. That is what is required to "rule the world". Having a pile of money makes you a target, that is all.
Bezos really believes he's untouchable (Score:3)
Sooner or later, people like Bezos will step too far over the line. Maybe it will be an employee worked literally to death, or the victim of an auto accident caused by an exhausted Amazon driver falling asleep at the wheel...who knows. But sooner or later, a surviving family member or loved one will start hunting these people, and they're realize nobody is really safe from somebody with nothing left to lose.
"Taunting"? (Score:3)
It's the the loaded language in this story I find most interesting.
Regardless of whether you sympathise more with Amazon or Warren, and regardless of whether you think Amazon tweeting at Warren was tactically shrewd, tactically foolish, or a sign of overbearing hubris, the actual message content was fundamentally unarguable: Congress writes the laws, companies follow them.
Now you can make an argument that big business lobbyists have so much influence that this is an overly simplistic view, but even saying that is not actually to deny the point, it's to add nuance and context that qualifies it, but not actually to say it isn't true. You can't say it isn't true; it obviously is.
But in this article saying what is unquestionably true is called "taunting" politicians? What does that, rather loaded, word mean? Is it intended to back Warren's proto-fascist suggestion that Americans should not be "powerful enough" to argue with Senators? Is it arguing that it is wrong for a company to defend itself in public from political attack? Is it warning Amazon, "don't you dare piss off powerful politicians, they'll make you pay for annoying them"? And if so, is this done out of sympathy and support for Amazon, or basically as a threat, goading the politicians into retaliating against anyone who dare question them?
Do we really want politicians to be immune not only to criticism, but even to someone arguing the opposite case to the one they're pushing? Is that totalitarian mindset really the state of American politics today?
wealth (Score:2)
jeff bozos should be informed that he is only the richest man for life
A better question (Score:3)
A better question would be why so many politicians taunt Amazon. Seriously, it occupies as much rent free space in their heads as Trump did, if not more.
That said, maybe Amazon is finally waking up to the fact that joining the Dem's army of unofficial tech lackeys didn't actually gain them anything. A bit late for realizing that, but hey.