Because the discussion is only focused on Amazon. If instead all such articles and complains would be "Amazon, among many other companies, give workers incentives to pee in bottles" then I would pay a lot more attention to it.
Because when you say "<insert-bad-company-of-the-day> does <insert-bad-thing-of-the-day>" which is obviously to me not unique to that company then your message sounds like meant to provoke a certain feeling against a certain company, my "manipulation" alarms start ringing and, as a protection mechanism, I stop believing everything you say. By making at least an effort to make such reporting balanced, fair and accurate you have much higher chance to get me to care.
Agreed. I may not have agreed with most things Amazon twitter said but IMO it was definitely refreshing to see a company answering back instead of being just a punching bag mute for the politicians to score easy wins like "hey look how tough I am, I'm saying all these things about big bad <insert the latest company punch bag>, you should vote for me because of the emotional response you get from feeling less powerless" (although the latter part is rarely spoken).
Amazon is a big employer: what's the percentage of Amazon's employees engage in that? What's the percentage of employees of any other large employer, that directly competes with Amazon (so same market) that engage in similar activities?
Peeing in bottles sounds good as a click bait title but it's easy to not see the forest from the trees if you just focus on one example.
Which seems to apply to some of our politicians too. Like the reply from Elizabeth Warren saying that maybe Amazon should be split up because then maybe they wouldn't have time to criticize elected officials. Or otherwise "stop criticizing me or I'll make you hurt". Not very nice coming from a political figure in a democracy.
I did find Amazon's responses to be tone deaf at best (mostly just disagreeing with them) but her reply to be much worse.
You’re clearly not being charitable to her if you read her tweet and thought she meant Amazon has to be broken up because their tweets are snarky towards her. She’s saying that Big Tech in general is so powerful—they can do whatever they want—and then snap back at politicians in snarky tweets without a care.
You’re completely missing the point I was making. It’s not about the snarky tweets. It’s about how big and powerful corporations have become.
I don’t know why I’m surprised; HN has shown me more and more that otherwise intelligent people are more than happy to support corporate friendly narratives and anti-progressive ones.
I don't think having more wealth per capita is unreasonable, unexpected or unfair. In life you acquire things over time (capital, skills, experience, relationships), you get more of this the more time passes so it's to be expected that older generations just have more of everything (maybe except health and energy, can't really buy biology, not yet).
The numbers that we _should_ be looking at is not how much they have vs how many they are (ie the wealth per capita) but wealth per capita at different stages in their life vs same stages in other generation's lives. Compare how much wealth per capita boomers had in their mid twienties, mid thirdies, etc compared to younger generation. I feel those comparisons are much more fair and telling (and yes, AFAIK, there is a discrepancy that makes it seem unfair).
My wife liked it so much we bought a couple of new ones when the product was retired just to make sure we'll have at least one working for decades to come. Still using one every day.
Indeed I noticed the 2018 Macbook Pro became a much more useful machine for work and I was a lot more productive once I started using it clamshell-mode only with external keyboard/mouse/monitors.
I think it mostly boils down to business loss that they would otherwise incur if they set themselves against those companies and thought them tooth and nail (the actual lawsuit cost would be insignificant). Meaning, no Google/Youtube Music deals with Viacom and potentially other RIAA members.
> No, that's not correct. Google goes above and beyond what the DMCA requires in order to curry favor with the movie/TV/music studios. Presumably Content ID was a part of Google's bend-over-backwards settlement with Viacom when they sued.
Yes, Google won in the end, but there were times when it didn't (they won on appeal) and the cost of the lawsuit itself, the insecurity of its outcome and the potential impact that could have down the line to doing business with Viacom I think were enough to act.
Because when you say "<insert-bad-company-of-the-day> does <insert-bad-thing-of-the-day>" which is obviously to me not unique to that company then your message sounds like meant to provoke a certain feeling against a certain company, my "manipulation" alarms start ringing and, as a protection mechanism, I stop believing everything you say. By making at least an effort to make such reporting balanced, fair and accurate you have much higher chance to get me to care.
YMMV, maybe it works for other people tho.