16 ms·

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

146 points by bin0 7y ago

kiallmacinnes 7y ago
I whole heartedly tried to read this. I couldn't. The constant updates of the stock symbol numbers, grabbing my attention every time, and causing reflows most of the time made it impossible.
logicprog 7y ago
Okay so wait, we have corporations trying to turn the public against a competitor for being "too successful," in the hopes that it will let them use the apparatus of government to hobble said competitor in any way without repercussions, and no one is upset about this? Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? This doesn't process for me. I mean seriously, Amazon is so superior to the competition that they're left trying to use institutionalized violence to stop them; that can only make things worse on the economics side. Why are we forgetting that? And before you talk about how Amazon acts monopolistically by promoting their own or favorite products, it's their platform, they have a right to do that and they're not forcing sellers to use them. The sellers, if they really think they have a better chance elsewhere, can leave. And Amazon doesn't owe them the best possible service. It might make it worse for users, but again no one is forcing you to use Amazon. Use Walmart all you want!
- leereeves 7y ago
  > Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? Perhaps people really feel that Amazon is an evil empire regardless of this competitor's actions.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    I think the point is that the danger may be more with the competitor than with Amazon. Or even worse, they're all equally terrible. Which would mean that no matter what we do, we lose privacy and freedoms. The public is being manipulated into taking actions directly contradictory to its own good either way. One road to death and despair, the other to disease and destruction. You could say, "choose wisely", but it doesn't really look like it matters.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      I think we're still better off if we have multiple equally terrible competitors keeping each other in check than one dominant company unrestrained.
      - logicprog 7y ago
        Sure, but using the government to enforce the destruction of competitors and new entrants is the shortest way to that outcome. If Walmart wants to compete, that's great. If they want to destroy their competitors, that's... Less so.
      - bilbo0s 7y ago
        And at the same time, when you do that, you turn a 9mm round that's flying at you, into a shotgun blast. This whole thing requires more thoughtful consideration. You're talking about "better" off, but we are "best" off without any of the terrible competitors even having the ability to play the game. Instead of going the anti-trust route for instance, we may just want to make the entire practice of using private data for any commercial reason at all, expressly illegal. Collecting private data at all, should be expressly illegal without the consent of the individual in question. Like a HIPAA-GDPR combo move, except with prison time. Basically pursuing solutions like that, we should get serious with all these guys.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >in the hopes that it will let them use the apparatus of government to hobble said competitor in any way without repercussions This is the problem nowadays. We can't really trust anybody. The threats to our privacy and freedoms are coming from every quarter. And the worst part is, that some of the people and organizations telling us about the threats to our freedoms and privacy, are, in fact, likely the biggest threats to our freedoms and privacy.
  - logicprog 7y ago
    I'm not exactly sure what you think the threats are, but it doesn't matter. This is a very correct sentiment! Well said.
- adventured 7y ago
  Large companies always use the government - when they can - to kneecap their competition. It's the very rare exception of a corporation that won't stoop to that level of behavior. There's practically an unlimited number of excuses a company can come up with to rationalize proceeding (with using the government as a leveling club). It's exactly what many of Microsoft's peers did in the 1990s. They waged a large, persistent campaign across years to convince the government to pursue and break up Microsoft. Larry Ellison went so far as to basically purchase trash from a cleaning company to get at info related to lobbyists supporting Microsoft's position.[1] Some of it was spot on, Microsoft was doing what they claimed; some of it was nothing more than ugly, base envy, jealousy, greed. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/diving-bills-trash-161599 https://www.newsweek.com/diving-bills-trash-161599
  - logicprog 7y ago
    Exactly. I've always had an issue with the whole incident where everyone went after Microsoft.
- dzader 7y ago
  > And before you talk about how Amazon acts monopolistically by promoting their own or favorite products, it's their platform, Just like Windows was Microsoft's platform and anyone was free to install whatever browser they wanted... Use Netscape all you want!
- gimmeThaBeet 7y ago
  Personally that's why I tend to like the American anti-trust standard of consumer welfare, and it bothers me that politicians are trying to dislodge it. It really does bother me when the facets of the complaints against the giants boil down to basically, they're too good at that, or they can do things that others can't. At a blunt level, isn't that the point? Isn't it what we want? When we talk about services, not petroleum, I find it difficult to see nearly the deep damage that their market positions would cause in a different line of business.
  - logicprog 7y ago
    Well said. Exactly!
  - cat199 7y ago
    > they can do things that others can't. when they start to be so influential and market shaping that the 'things they can do that others cant' threatens to be 'sell products effectively enough to survive independently' or 'compete in this space at all, even with massive backing' then no, this is not what we want. granted, I don't think amazon is there yet, but they are certainly making impact.
- devmunchies 7y ago
  >Amazon is so superior to the competition I think too much efficiency in retail allows people to over-consume, and is a net negative for the environment and mental health... so i would support initiatives like this from a purely philosophical worldview. progress isn't always progress.
  - logicprog 7y ago
    Sure except that from a mental health standpoint, that's a highly personal view, and not something that is really viable to enforce for a government. It's also not really verifiable on enough cases to make a blanket ruling a good idea. By all means get the word out about overconsumption, but don't have the government force the people to act in their "higher self interest" by removing their ability to get access to efficient retail. I know a lot of people on HN love the idea that people are stupid and we need to regulate them to make them positively free, but that's not a great path to go down for a lot of reasons. On the environmental side, I think climate change is real, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as everyone says it is, and I find it odd that the solution to every upcoming crisis is always more socialism, and then we get more socialism but it doesn't help and then the date of the crisis passes and we go on to a new one.
    - devmunchies 7y ago
      you lumped me with the left wing climate change, socialist group but I'm much more skewed toward the right-wing views like Charles Lindbergh, Ted Kaczynski, Pentti Linkola (anti-technological progress, connection to the soil, to your local community, to the seasons, etc.) Its not just climate change i care about, it species extinction. I work remote on my own land in the mountains and definitely notice less birds singing. > except that from a mental health standpoint, that's a highly personal view suicide rates and drug addiction in our modern society say otherwise
      - logicprog 7y ago
        > you lumped me with the left wing climate change, socialist group but I'm much more skewed toward the right-wing views like Charles Lindbergh, Ted Kaczynski, Pentti Linkola (anti-technological progress, connection to the soil, to your local community, to the seasons, etc.) Well that's basically just pastoral socialism, and very similar to what the left advocates anyway. I didn't actually know what you believed when I wrote that and tried not to assume, I was more processing my own experience with that. Furthermore my bigger point, using hysterics and fear tactics to push an agenda, still stands. > suicide rates and drug addiction in our modern society say otherwise Is that because of overconsumption though?
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > Okay so wait, we have corporations trying to turn the public against a competitor for being "too successful," in the hopes that it will let them use the apparatus of government to hobble said competitor in any way without repercussions, and no one is upset about this? Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? This doesn't process for me. Amazon can be an evil empire, AND their opposition can also be evil corporations that do evil things like organize fake grassroots campaigns. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. > Amazon is so superior to the competition that they're left trying to use institutionalized violence to stop them "Violence" is a word with a meaning, and it isn't happening here. No one has been so much as bruised. If you have to resort to this sort of sophistry to make your point, your point is probably not correct. Amazon isn't winning because they're superior to the competition. Lots of online sellers manage to not sell counterfeit goods, have better prices, and give more of the profit to the people actually producing products. Amazon is winning because of first-to-market advantages, pre-existing infrastructure, and monopolistic practices. > And before you talk about how Amazon acts monopolistically by promoting their own or favorite products, it's their platform, they have a right to do that and they're not forcing sellers to use them. The sellers, if they really think they have a better chance elsewhere, can leave. It might make it worse for users, but again no one is forcing you to use Amazon. Use Walmart all you want! It's clear that you do not understand the concept of a monopoly.
  - logicprog 7y ago
    > Amazon can be an evil empire, AND their opposition can also be evil corporations that do evil things like organize fake grassroots campaigns. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. I'm perfectly aware of that. The point is that everybody is echoing with the message, and not really worried about the delivery at all. Furthermore, if the delivery is suspect here I'm trying to suggest we should examine why we hate Amazon so much, and whether it's justified. > "Violence" is a word with a meaning, ... If you have to resort to this sort of sophistry to make your point, your point is probably not correct. I'm aware of that, thank you. If you have to resort to such sophistry maybe your point isn't correct! (Although I'm not actually saying that yet lol) > and it isn't happening here. No one has been so much as bruised. Not right now, obviously. But where does the government's power to enforce things come from? Violence. Whenever you are trying to use the government to force people to do things, it's from a position of the threat of violence. That's the nature of the beast. That's also why I qualified it with "institutionalized", which you seem to have conveniently ignored. The government represents an implied threat of violence used to back the power of an institution that abstract actual violence away (most of the time). This is why people often can't see the violence; and because of that I find it helpful to point it out more explicitly. > It's clear that you do not understand the concept of a monopoly. I know what the government defines as a monopoly, and would say Amazon skirts that line VERY closely. But I'm trying to get people from just saying, "it's a monopoly" and leaving it at that. That lets the connotation of the word do all the legwork, when we should be examining exactly what the real behavior is and whether it's actually wrong and something we should be attacking them for. It's all well and good to talk about the Law, but sometimes we have to talk about ethics and rights, too.
- Porthos9K 7y ago
  Amazon is a corporation. Corporations do not have inherent rights. They have powers defined by law[1]. Laws are enacted by governments instituted by the people (you and me) who are sovereign but delegate limited powers in order to live in a society. Jeff Bezos, as a human being, has intrinsic and inalienable human rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ability to run his business under the aegis of a limited-liability corporation is not one of them. 1: A corporation's legally defined powers are generally described as "rights" because people tend to be sloppy in their use of language, do not appreciate correction, and often mistake precision for pedantry.
  - Pyxl101 7y ago
    > Corporations do not have inherent rights. That's not exactly true. Corporations have many of the same rights. For example, in Citizens United vs FEC, the Supreme Court wrote that: "The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations (...) The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not 'natural persons'." (page 25 in https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf ) If the First Amendment is the recognition of a right, then corporations have that right, just like natural persons. This concept in the US is called "corporate personhood" and it has long been recognized by courts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_... > In 1818, the United States Supreme Court decided Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (...) Beginning with this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      Even if “corporate personhood” wasn’t a thing, any form of organization, incorporated or otherwise, like a church, would still have speech rights under the first amendment. “Corporate personhood” isn’t really a single concept under which contracts and land ownership and speech all work the same as if it were a person. It’s a bag of different concepts.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? This doesn't process for me. The idea predates the astroturfing effort, which glommed on to it because the idea was popular, resilient, and convenient. The fact that it serves certain other companies’ interests to promote the idea doesn't invalidate it.
- azdacha 7y ago
  "superior" us what you call forced Prime subscription and tonight's server over-pricing ? Or is it when a company obviously in position or power is still asking for monetary help ? I'm not sure I agree with your définition of superior.
koboll 7y ago
It's a safe bet that any organization with a name like "Free and Fair Markets Initiative" is corporate astroturfing.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pm24601 7y ago
Poor, Poor Amazon. Amazon is run by the richest person in the entire world who will come to the oligarch's aid? Amazon paid NO income taxes last year. I am against Amazon for that reason alone.
- 1ris 7y ago
  I don't think your comment is related to this article.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tracer4201 7y ago
  I disagree. Amazon didn’t break any laws when they paid whatever amount they did or didn’t pay. Also I’m not sure which oligarch you’re talking about. And they’re not the only ones who did this. It’s just convenient to flash Amazons name next to this headline since there are enough companies out there who refuse to compete or do anything innovative but want you to blindly give them your money.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Don't be angry at Amazon (and the others) - campaign to change the law. Fixating on massive corporations not paying tax is actually making the problem worse, because it takes attention away from the only thing that can fix the problem which is changing the law. Anything less is just asking companies to hurt themselves for no reason. Just like how most people would pay lower taxes if it was legal, the same goes for companies. That's not saying I don't completely agree they need to pay their fair share - I do!
  - evan_ 7y ago
    > Don't be angry at Amazon (and the others) - campaign to change the law. You can do both. In many if not all cases the tax loopholes are a result of an amazon-like company lobbying politicians, they’re not innocently taking advantage of a neutral situation.
deogeo 7y ago
Enemy of my enemy...
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  ... is probably still your enemy, but may be useful.
ptah 7y ago
they are using amazon's own tactics: https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/8/20726863/amazon-pays-warehouse-employees-twitter-fc-ambassadors-quillette https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/8/20726863/amazon-pays-war...
- jacknews 7y ago
  exactly, a den of thieves: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-21/amazon-hires-army-lobbyists-political-spending-outpaces-walmart-exxonmobil https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-21/amazon-hires-army-...
SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
This is why I tend to try to keep a healthy skepticism about a great deal of the negative press on Amazon's warehouse working conditions, pushes to unionize, etc. So much of it lacks real context needed to actually inform, and just looks like click-bait or campaigns to drive negative sentiment, or to inhibit their ability to perform. And really, that should I guess be the default way one consume's news in general, no matter what its about. (Even the parent article!)
- hrktb 7y ago
  While skeptism is always healthy, a lot of the flack Amazon is getting seems pretty legit. Competitors might be piling in it and pushing it under the spotlight、even exaggerate parts of it, but of lot of Amazon’s operations is still provably shitty. For instance what part of the warehouse working condition do you think is completely fabricated ?
  - prepend 7y ago
    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.
    - hrktb 7y ago
      They’re violating rules and it’s not without any consequences though [ex 0] It also looks to me the same as child labor in developing countries for instance. It might be par for the course but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be against it, or turn a blind eye on the big players participating in it, or ignore reports. Basically I don’t see how it’a misleading when it’s a reality thy is shared across an industry. Just as Apple gets press when factory workers suicide after bruning out, Amazon getting press for their warehouse is nothing unnatural. [0] https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2017/11/09/470850.htm https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2017/11/09/470...
benologist 7y ago
I think the takeaway is companies should compete on ethics but be transparent about it. If corporations openly call out each other's malignant actions that's a huge win for us all in holding them to a higher standard. I don't believe the "poor Amazon" angle for a moment though. A lot of the "campaign" against Amazon takes place in EU courtrooms where no rival company is focusing our attention on their transgressions. A lot of stuff Amazon chooses to do is morally unjust and should be illegal - they choose to include bathroom break time with productivity calculations that determines who gets fired. Bezoz just clawed back 1900 workers' healthcare to indistinguishably enrich himself. France fined them for abusing vendors - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/04/france-fines-amazon-4-million-imposing-abusive-conditions-vendors/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/04/france-fines-ama... EU is investigating them to see if they abuse vendors with the vendors' own sales data - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/eu-probing-amazons-use-of-data-on-third-party-merchants.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/eu-probing-amazons-use-of-da... Reversing corrupt tax deals - https://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/amazon-apple-tax-eu/2017/10/04/id/817521/ https://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/amazon-apple-tax-...
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  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.
  - flixic 7y ago
    Being from EU with decent contact to EU parliament... EU officials really don’t need much encouragement. The passion to regulate everything burns deeply.
    - WillPostForFood 7y ago
      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...
opportune 7y ago
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 feel hollow
- moosey 7y ago
  Soon "tell us what to think" will be so subversive that most people might not have any way to combat it. Experiments have shown that leading questions can create memories where none previously existed, and how fragile and inaccurate our memories are. I don't know if that makes times interesting or terrifying. It's come to the point where I seriously toy with handing off most of my decision making process to statistics. Mathematics has derived an algorithm for a lot of real world decision making that is superior to what the vast majority of humans can do, and I'm not sure which group I'm in: the ones that make really poor emotional decisions (although "luck" and emotions are tied together, according to more research I've read; luck might just be a way of thinking), or if I'm able to make well informed decisions based on data.
  - opportune 7y ago
    Unless you are directly plumbing the depths of data and doing computations, I worry using “statistics” to make decisions will just bias your thinking in subtler ways: towards what you’re already aware of, estimates that could be faulty, information availability bias. Except in some ways it’s more dangerous because it carries the veneer of mathematical correctness
  - inimino 7y ago
    Statistics based on what? Almost all statistics you can collect will be based on what other people do, so there's no escaping that bias. You're better off thinking for yourself, and being cautious about making any decision that affects your future.
- Zenst 7y ago
wongarsu 7y ago
"Campaign against Amazon funded by those that are against Amazon" might be burying the lede. Far more interesting imho: >The grass-roots support cited by the group was also not what it appeared to be. The labor union says it was listed as a member of the group without permission and says a document purporting to show that it gave permission has a forged signature. The Boston professor says the group, with his permission, ghost-wrote an op-ed for him about Amazon but that he didn’t know he would be named as a member. The California businessman was dead for months before his name was removed from the group’s website this year.
- haroldp 7y ago
  And if you make it all the way to the bottom of the article, there's this gem: > Service Employees International ... was named as a member [of the fake grass roots org] without permission...Marathon [PR firm for the fake grass roots org] emailed to the Journal a membership agreement that the agency said had been signed by Gilda Valdez, the chief of staff for the union local, dated July 23, 2018. But Ms. Valdez said that the signature on the documents provided by Marathon was not hers. And the article shows Ms. Valdez' real signature and the one on the document for comparison, and one is clearly a clumsy copy of the other. IANAL, but isn't this fraud?
mudil 7y ago
Most of the grassroot campaigns, if not all, are organized and financed by individuals and companies for their benefit or for political benefit. In the olden days, loyalty would organize a distant revolt so the king would be forced to march to a distant land. In the meantime, benefits will accumulate, either by making king poorer, distracting him, or by coup d'etat. Same thing here. I don't believe for a moment that any of the grassroot campaigns, either political or business, are spontaneous nowadays. Maybe 0.001% are, but that's it.
- wolco 7y ago
  Most are spontaneous started out with ideals and outrage but those die unless they meet money.. So the campaigns are real but the scale is faked.
Porthos9K 7y ago
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.
- dymk 7y ago
  By that logic, my Tinder profile is nothing but self-sanctioned psyops manipulating people into liking me. I can use scary words to describe mundane things too.
  - Porthos9K 7y ago
    You're like the Devil on the cover of Iron Maiden's The Number of the Beast album[1]. You think you've got Eddie dancing to your tune, but you don't see the strings Eddie is using to make you dance to his tune. 1: https://imgur.com/a/XOzzWnZ https://imgur.com/a/XOzzWnZ
    - dymk 7y ago
      dude that’s deep and all but are you gonna pass the blunt or what
      - Porthos9K 7y ago
        If you're going to be like that, then I think I'll bogart it. :)
- toyg 7y ago
  IIRC "Distraction" by Bruce Sterling covers that sort of thing.
  - Porthos9K 7y ago
    Thanks. I'll have to check that out.
rdtwo 7y ago
Idk why they don’t just slam them on lead paint and fake products. You could make a fucking Super Bowl level ad and do serious damage to amazon on real issues.
- wolco 7y ago
  They need to accept the ad as well. There is a lot of censorship in advertising more than you would expect.
- bin0 7y ago
  Because they would have to spend years in court litigating whether or not that was slander. Consumers have also been shown to respond better to positive causes than negative ones, and a non-profit funded by these guys is better equipped to spin it as a positive "working for a better future" type thing than them all running "Amazon bad" ads.
  - rdtwo 7y ago
    Just think of the press that an ad slamming amazon for that stuff would get. Plus you can avoid slander by either doing a real test or just by not naming amazon and implying it’s them.
prepend 7y ago
Does Oracle really think they are competing with Amazon over a $10B government contract? That’s like Peugeot thinking they are competing with Volvo for a shipping fleet or something.
- arkitaip 7y ago
  Yes they are absolutely delusional when it comes to their competitiveness.
rhinoceraptor 7y ago
Bezos vs Ellison, now that is a good supervillain showdown.
_verandaguy 7y ago
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.
- october_sky 7y ago
  > 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.
- prepend 7y ago
  Did Bezos buy WSJ in addition to the Post? I thought Fox owned WSJ.
- edbaskerville 7y ago
  You’re thinking of the Washington Post. WSJ is a Murdoch property.
- shartshooter 7y ago
  Do you mean WaPo? Bezos owns the Washington Post but WSJ is owned by Murdoch via NewsCorp[1] unless I’m mistaken. [1] - https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/112615/wall-street-journal-considered-be-conservative-publisher.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/112615/wall-street-...
- jahlove 7y ago
  WSJ is owned by Dow Jones & Company / News Corporation I think you're confusing WSJ and The Washington Post. The later is owned by Jeff Bezos.
lemm 7y ago
Grassroots organizing is dead. Nowadays you have a bunch of groups funded by ridiculously wealthy foundations and donors who are chasing the ghost of grassroots organizing which has been dead for years. I work for a small nonprofit which claims to run grassroots advocacy campaigns. We are in the environmental sector, but I'm sure it is similar in other areas. A solid 70% of our funding comes from large foundations. We pick an issue, get people fired up on social media about it, then call it grassroots just because a bunch of people supported it.
Grimm1 7y ago
Quelle suprise!

146 points by bin0 7y ago

I whole heartedly tried to read this. I couldn't. The constant updates of the stock symbol numbers, grabbing my attention every time, and causing reflows most of the time made it impossible.

logicprog 7y ago

Okay so wait, we have corporations trying to turn the public against a competitor for being "too successful," in the hopes that it will let them use the apparatus of government to hobble said competitor in any way without repercussions, and no one is upset about this? Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? This doesn't process for me. I mean seriously, Amazon is so superior to the competition that they're left trying to use institutionalized violence to stop them; that can only make things worse on the economics side. Why are we forgetting that? And before you talk about how Amazon acts monopolistically by promoting their own or favorite products, it's their platform, they have a right to do that and they're not forcing sellers to use them. The sellers, if they really think they have a better chance elsewhere, can leave. And Amazon doesn't owe them the best possible service. It might make it worse for users, but again no one is forcing you to use Amazon. Use Walmart all you want!

leereeves 7y ago
> Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? Perhaps people really feel that Amazon is an evil empire regardless of this competitor's actions.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  I think the point is that the danger may be more with the competitor than with Amazon. Or even worse, they're all equally terrible. Which would mean that no matter what we do, we lose privacy and freedoms. The public is being manipulated into taking actions directly contradictory to its own good either way. One road to death and despair, the other to disease and destruction. You could say, "choose wisely", but it doesn't really look like it matters.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    I think we're still better off if we have multiple equally terrible competitors keeping each other in check than one dominant company unrestrained.
    - logicprog 7y ago
      Sure, but using the government to enforce the destruction of competitors and new entrants is the shortest way to that outcome. If Walmart wants to compete, that's great. If they want to destroy their competitors, that's... Less so.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      And at the same time, when you do that, you turn a 9mm round that's flying at you, into a shotgun blast. This whole thing requires more thoughtful consideration. You're talking about "better" off, but we are "best" off without any of the terrible competitors even having the ability to play the game. Instead of going the anti-trust route for instance, we may just want to make the entire practice of using private data for any commercial reason at all, expressly illegal. Collecting private data at all, should be expressly illegal without the consent of the individual in question. Like a HIPAA-GDPR combo move, except with prison time. Basically pursuing solutions like that, we should get serious with all these guys.
bilbo0s 7y ago
>in the hopes that it will let them use the apparatus of government to hobble said competitor in any way without repercussions This is the problem nowadays. We can't really trust anybody. The threats to our privacy and freedoms are coming from every quarter. And the worst part is, that some of the people and organizations telling us about the threats to our freedoms and privacy, are, in fact, likely the biggest threats to our freedoms and privacy.
- logicprog 7y ago
  I'm not exactly sure what you think the threats are, but it doesn't matter. This is a very correct sentiment! Well said.
adventured 7y ago
Large companies always use the government - when they can - to kneecap their competition. It's the very rare exception of a corporation that won't stoop to that level of behavior. There's practically an unlimited number of excuses a company can come up with to rationalize proceeding (with using the government as a leveling club). It's exactly what many of Microsoft's peers did in the 1990s. They waged a large, persistent campaign across years to convince the government to pursue and break up Microsoft. Larry Ellison went so far as to basically purchase trash from a cleaning company to get at info related to lobbyists supporting Microsoft's position.[1] Some of it was spot on, Microsoft was doing what they claimed; some of it was nothing more than ugly, base envy, jealousy, greed. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/diving-bills-trash-161599 https://www.newsweek.com/diving-bills-trash-161599
- logicprog 7y ago
  Exactly. I've always had an issue with the whole incident where everyone went after Microsoft.
dzader 7y ago
> And before you talk about how Amazon acts monopolistically by promoting their own or favorite products, it's their platform, Just like Windows was Microsoft's platform and anyone was free to install whatever browser they wanted... Use Netscape all you want!
gimmeThaBeet 7y ago
Personally that's why I tend to like the American anti-trust standard of consumer welfare, and it bothers me that politicians are trying to dislodge it. It really does bother me when the facets of the complaints against the giants boil down to basically, they're too good at that, or they can do things that others can't. At a blunt level, isn't that the point? Isn't it what we want? When we talk about services, not petroleum, I find it difficult to see nearly the deep damage that their market positions would cause in a different line of business.
- logicprog 7y ago
  Well said. Exactly!
- cat199 7y ago
  > they can do things that others can't. when they start to be so influential and market shaping that the 'things they can do that others cant' threatens to be 'sell products effectively enough to survive independently' or 'compete in this space at all, even with massive backing' then no, this is not what we want. granted, I don't think amazon is there yet, but they are certainly making impact.
devmunchies 7y ago
>Amazon is so superior to the competition I think too much efficiency in retail allows people to over-consume, and is a net negative for the environment and mental health... so i would support initiatives like this from a purely philosophical worldview. progress isn't always progress.
- logicprog 7y ago
  Sure except that from a mental health standpoint, that's a highly personal view, and not something that is really viable to enforce for a government. It's also not really verifiable on enough cases to make a blanket ruling a good idea. By all means get the word out about overconsumption, but don't have the government force the people to act in their "higher self interest" by removing their ability to get access to efficient retail. I know a lot of people on HN love the idea that people are stupid and we need to regulate them to make them positively free, but that's not a great path to go down for a lot of reasons. On the environmental side, I think climate change is real, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as everyone says it is, and I find it odd that the solution to every upcoming crisis is always more socialism, and then we get more socialism but it doesn't help and then the date of the crisis passes and we go on to a new one.
  - devmunchies 7y ago
    you lumped me with the left wing climate change, socialist group but I'm much more skewed toward the right-wing views like Charles Lindbergh, Ted Kaczynski, Pentti Linkola (anti-technological progress, connection to the soil, to your local community, to the seasons, etc.) Its not just climate change i care about, it species extinction. I work remote on my own land in the mountains and definitely notice less birds singing. > except that from a mental health standpoint, that's a highly personal view suicide rates and drug addiction in our modern society say otherwise
    - logicprog 7y ago
      > you lumped me with the left wing climate change, socialist group but I'm much more skewed toward the right-wing views like Charles Lindbergh, Ted Kaczynski, Pentti Linkola (anti-technological progress, connection to the soil, to your local community, to the seasons, etc.) Well that's basically just pastoral socialism, and very similar to what the left advocates anyway. I didn't actually know what you believed when I wrote that and tried not to assume, I was more processing my own experience with that. Furthermore my bigger point, using hysterics and fear tactics to push an agenda, still stands. > suicide rates and drug addiction in our modern society say otherwise Is that because of overconsumption though?
kerkeslager 7y ago
> Okay so wait, we have corporations trying to turn the public against a competitor for being "too successful," in the hopes that it will let them use the apparatus of government to hobble said competitor in any way without repercussions, and no one is upset about this? Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? This doesn't process for me. Amazon can be an evil empire, AND their opposition can also be evil corporations that do evil things like organize fake grassroots campaigns. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. > Amazon is so superior to the competition that they're left trying to use institutionalized violence to stop them "Violence" is a word with a meaning, and it isn't happening here. No one has been so much as bruised. If you have to resort to this sort of sophistry to make your point, your point is probably not correct. Amazon isn't winning because they're superior to the competition. Lots of online sellers manage to not sell counterfeit goods, have better prices, and give more of the profit to the people actually producing products. Amazon is winning because of first-to-market advantages, pre-existing infrastructure, and monopolistic practices. > And before you talk about how Amazon acts monopolistically by promoting their own or favorite products, it's their platform, they have a right to do that and they're not forcing sellers to use them. The sellers, if they really think they have a better chance elsewhere, can leave. It might make it worse for users, but again no one is forcing you to use Amazon. Use Walmart all you want! It's clear that you do not understand the concept of a monopoly.
- logicprog 7y ago
  > Amazon can be an evil empire, AND their opposition can also be evil corporations that do evil things like organize fake grassroots campaigns. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. I'm perfectly aware of that. The point is that everybody is echoing with the message, and not really worried about the delivery at all. Furthermore, if the delivery is suspect here I'm trying to suggest we should examine why we hate Amazon so much, and whether it's justified. > "Violence" is a word with a meaning, ... If you have to resort to this sort of sophistry to make your point, your point is probably not correct. I'm aware of that, thank you. If you have to resort to such sophistry maybe your point isn't correct! (Although I'm not actually saying that yet lol) > and it isn't happening here. No one has been so much as bruised. Not right now, obviously. But where does the government's power to enforce things come from? Violence. Whenever you are trying to use the government to force people to do things, it's from a position of the threat of violence. That's the nature of the beast. That's also why I qualified it with "institutionalized", which you seem to have conveniently ignored. The government represents an implied threat of violence used to back the power of an institution that abstract actual violence away (most of the time). This is why people often can't see the violence; and because of that I find it helpful to point it out more explicitly. > It's clear that you do not understand the concept of a monopoly. I know what the government defines as a monopoly, and would say Amazon skirts that line VERY closely. But I'm trying to get people from just saying, "it's a monopoly" and leaving it at that. That lets the connotation of the word do all the legwork, when we should be examining exactly what the real behavior is and whether it's actually wrong and something we should be attacking them for. It's all well and good to talk about the Law, but sometimes we have to talk about ethics and rights, too.
Porthos9K 7y ago
Amazon is a corporation. Corporations do not have inherent rights. They have powers defined by law[1]. Laws are enacted by governments instituted by the people (you and me) who are sovereign but delegate limited powers in order to live in a society. Jeff Bezos, as a human being, has intrinsic and inalienable human rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ability to run his business under the aegis of a limited-liability corporation is not one of them. 1: A corporation's legally defined powers are generally described as "rights" because people tend to be sloppy in their use of language, do not appreciate correction, and often mistake precision for pedantry.
- Pyxl101 7y ago
  > Corporations do not have inherent rights. That's not exactly true. Corporations have many of the same rights. For example, in Citizens United vs FEC, the Supreme Court wrote that: "The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations (...) The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not 'natural persons'." (page 25 in https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf ) If the First Amendment is the recognition of a right, then corporations have that right, just like natural persons. This concept in the US is called "corporate personhood" and it has long been recognized by courts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_... > In 1818, the United States Supreme Court decided Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (...) Beginning with this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    Even if “corporate personhood” wasn’t a thing, any form of organization, incorporated or otherwise, like a church, would still have speech rights under the first amendment. “Corporate personhood” isn’t really a single concept under which contracts and land ownership and speech all work the same as if it were a person. It’s a bag of different concepts.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? This doesn't process for me. The idea predates the astroturfing effort, which glommed on to it because the idea was popular, resilient, and convenient. The fact that it serves certain other companies’ interests to promote the idea doesn't invalidate it.
azdacha 7y ago
"superior" us what you call forced Prime subscription and tonight's server over-pricing ? Or is it when a company obviously in position or power is still asking for monetary help ? I'm not sure I agree with your définition of superior.

koboll 7y ago

It's a safe bet that any organization with a name like "Free and Fair Markets Initiative" is corporate astroturfing.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

pm24601 7y ago

Poor, Poor Amazon. Amazon is run by the richest person in the entire world who will come to the oligarch's aid? Amazon paid NO income taxes last year. I am against Amazon for that reason alone.

1ris 7y ago
I don't think your comment is related to this article.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tracer4201 7y ago
I disagree. Amazon didn’t break any laws when they paid whatever amount they did or didn’t pay. Also I’m not sure which oligarch you’re talking about. And they’re not the only ones who did this. It’s just convenient to flash Amazons name next to this headline since there are enough companies out there who refuse to compete or do anything innovative but want you to blindly give them your money.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cameronbrown 7y ago
Don't be angry at Amazon (and the others) - campaign to change the law. Fixating on massive corporations not paying tax is actually making the problem worse, because it takes attention away from the only thing that can fix the problem which is changing the law. Anything less is just asking companies to hurt themselves for no reason. Just like how most people would pay lower taxes if it was legal, the same goes for companies. That's not saying I don't completely agree they need to pay their fair share - I do!
- evan_ 7y ago
  > Don't be angry at Amazon (and the others) - campaign to change the law. You can do both. In many if not all cases the tax loopholes are a result of an amazon-like company lobbying politicians, they’re not innocently taking advantage of a neutral situation.

deogeo 7y ago

Enemy of my enemy...

dredmorbius 7y ago
... is probably still your enemy, but may be useful.

ptah 7y ago

they are using amazon's own tactics: https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/8/20726863/amazon-pays-warehouse-employees-twitter-fc-ambassadors-quillette https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/8/20726863/amazon-pays-war...

jacknews 7y ago
exactly, a den of thieves: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-21/amazon-hires-army-lobbyists-political-spending-outpaces-walmart-exxonmobil https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-21/amazon-hires-army-...

SmirkingRevenge 7y ago

This is why I tend to try to keep a healthy skepticism about a great deal of the negative press on Amazon's warehouse working conditions, pushes to unionize, etc. So much of it lacks real context needed to actually inform, and just looks like click-bait or campaigns to drive negative sentiment, or to inhibit their ability to perform. And really, that should I guess be the default way one consume's news in general, no matter what its about. (Even the parent article!)

hrktb 7y ago
While skeptism is always healthy, a lot of the flack Amazon is getting seems pretty legit. Competitors might be piling in it and pushing it under the spotlight、even exaggerate parts of it, but of lot of Amazon’s operations is still provably shitty. For instance what part of the warehouse working condition do you think is completely fabricated ?
- prepend 7y ago
  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.
  - hrktb 7y ago
    They’re violating rules and it’s not without any consequences though [ex 0] It also looks to me the same as child labor in developing countries for instance. It might be par for the course but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be against it, or turn a blind eye on the big players participating in it, or ignore reports. Basically I don’t see how it’a misleading when it’s a reality thy is shared across an industry. Just as Apple gets press when factory workers suicide after bruning out, Amazon getting press for their warehouse is nothing unnatural. [0] https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2017/11/09/470850.htm https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2017/11/09/470...

benologist 7y ago

I think the takeaway is companies should compete on ethics but be transparent about it. If corporations openly call out each other's malignant actions that's a huge win for us all in holding them to a higher standard. I don't believe the "poor Amazon" angle for a moment though. A lot of the "campaign" against Amazon takes place in EU courtrooms where no rival company is focusing our attention on their transgressions. A lot of stuff Amazon chooses to do is morally unjust and should be illegal - they choose to include bathroom break time with productivity calculations that determines who gets fired. Bezoz just clawed back 1900 workers' healthcare to indistinguishably enrich himself. France fined them for abusing vendors - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/04/france-fines-amazon-4-million-imposing-abusive-conditions-vendors/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/04/france-fines-ama... EU is investigating them to see if they abuse vendors with the vendors' own sales data - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/eu-probing-amazons-use-of-data-on-third-party-merchants.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/eu-probing-amazons-use-of-da... Reversing corrupt tax deals - https://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/amazon-apple-tax-eu/2017/10/04/id/817521/ https://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/amazon-apple-tax-...

WillPostForFood 7y ago
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.
- flixic 7y ago
  Being from EU with decent contact to EU parliament... EU officials really don’t need much encouragement. The passion to regulate everything burns deeply.
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    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...

opportune 7y ago

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 feel hollow

moosey 7y ago
Soon "tell us what to think" will be so subversive that most people might not have any way to combat it. Experiments have shown that leading questions can create memories where none previously existed, and how fragile and inaccurate our memories are. I don't know if that makes times interesting or terrifying. It's come to the point where I seriously toy with handing off most of my decision making process to statistics. Mathematics has derived an algorithm for a lot of real world decision making that is superior to what the vast majority of humans can do, and I'm not sure which group I'm in: the ones that make really poor emotional decisions (although "luck" and emotions are tied together, according to more research I've read; luck might just be a way of thinking), or if I'm able to make well informed decisions based on data.
- opportune 7y ago
  Unless you are directly plumbing the depths of data and doing computations, I worry using “statistics” to make decisions will just bias your thinking in subtler ways: towards what you’re already aware of, estimates that could be faulty, information availability bias. Except in some ways it’s more dangerous because it carries the veneer of mathematical correctness
- inimino 7y ago
  Statistics based on what? Almost all statistics you can collect will be based on what other people do, so there's no escaping that bias. You're better off thinking for yourself, and being cautious about making any decision that affects your future.
Zenst 7y ago

wongarsu 7y ago

"Campaign against Amazon funded by those that are against Amazon" might be burying the lede. Far more interesting imho: >The grass-roots support cited by the group was also not what it appeared to be. The labor union says it was listed as a member of the group without permission and says a document purporting to show that it gave permission has a forged signature. The Boston professor says the group, with his permission, ghost-wrote an op-ed for him about Amazon but that he didn’t know he would be named as a member. The California businessman was dead for months before his name was removed from the group’s website this year.

haroldp 7y ago
And if you make it all the way to the bottom of the article, there's this gem: > Service Employees International ... was named as a member [of the fake grass roots org] without permission...Marathon [PR firm for the fake grass roots org] emailed to the Journal a membership agreement that the agency said had been signed by Gilda Valdez, the chief of staff for the union local, dated July 23, 2018. But Ms. Valdez said that the signature on the documents provided by Marathon was not hers. And the article shows Ms. Valdez' real signature and the one on the document for comparison, and one is clearly a clumsy copy of the other. IANAL, but isn't this fraud?

mudil 7y ago

Most of the grassroot campaigns, if not all, are organized and financed by individuals and companies for their benefit or for political benefit. In the olden days, loyalty would organize a distant revolt so the king would be forced to march to a distant land. In the meantime, benefits will accumulate, either by making king poorer, distracting him, or by coup d'etat. Same thing here. I don't believe for a moment that any of the grassroot campaigns, either political or business, are spontaneous nowadays. Maybe 0.001% are, but that's it.

wolco 7y ago
Most are spontaneous started out with ideals and outrage but those die unless they meet money.. So the campaigns are real but the scale is faked.

Porthos9K 7y ago

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.

dymk 7y ago
By that logic, my Tinder profile is nothing but self-sanctioned psyops manipulating people into liking me. I can use scary words to describe mundane things too.
- Porthos9K 7y ago
  You're like the Devil on the cover of Iron Maiden's The Number of the Beast album[1]. You think you've got Eddie dancing to your tune, but you don't see the strings Eddie is using to make you dance to his tune. 1: https://imgur.com/a/XOzzWnZ https://imgur.com/a/XOzzWnZ
  - dymk 7y ago
    dude that’s deep and all but are you gonna pass the blunt or what
    - Porthos9K 7y ago
      If you're going to be like that, then I think I'll bogart it. :)
toyg 7y ago
IIRC "Distraction" by Bruce Sterling covers that sort of thing.
- Porthos9K 7y ago
  Thanks. I'll have to check that out.

rdtwo 7y ago

Idk why they don’t just slam them on lead paint and fake products. You could make a fucking Super Bowl level ad and do serious damage to amazon on real issues.

wolco 7y ago
They need to accept the ad as well. There is a lot of censorship in advertising more than you would expect.
bin0 7y ago
Because they would have to spend years in court litigating whether or not that was slander. Consumers have also been shown to respond better to positive causes than negative ones, and a non-profit funded by these guys is better equipped to spin it as a positive "working for a better future" type thing than them all running "Amazon bad" ads.
- rdtwo 7y ago
  Just think of the press that an ad slamming amazon for that stuff would get. Plus you can avoid slander by either doing a real test or just by not naming amazon and implying it’s them.

prepend 7y ago

Does Oracle really think they are competing with Amazon over a $10B government contract? That’s like Peugeot thinking they are competing with Volvo for a shipping fleet or something.

arkitaip 7y ago
Yes they are absolutely delusional when it comes to their competitiveness.

rhinoceraptor 7y ago

Bezos vs Ellison, now that is a good supervillain showdown.

_verandaguy 7y ago

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.

october_sky 7y ago
> 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.
prepend 7y ago
Did Bezos buy WSJ in addition to the Post? I thought Fox owned WSJ.
edbaskerville 7y ago
You’re thinking of the Washington Post. WSJ is a Murdoch property.
shartshooter 7y ago
Do you mean WaPo? Bezos owns the Washington Post but WSJ is owned by Murdoch via NewsCorp[1] unless I’m mistaken. [1] - https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/112615/wall-street-journal-considered-be-conservative-publisher.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/112615/wall-street-...
jahlove 7y ago
WSJ is owned by Dow Jones & Company / News Corporation I think you're confusing WSJ and The Washington Post. The later is owned by Jeff Bezos.

lemm 7y ago

Grassroots organizing is dead. Nowadays you have a bunch of groups funded by ridiculously wealthy foundations and donors who are chasing the ghost of grassroots organizing which has been dead for years. I work for a small nonprofit which claims to run grassroots advocacy campaigns. We are in the environmental sector, but I'm sure it is similar in other areas. A solid 70% of our funding comes from large foundations. We pick an issue, get people fired up on social media about it, then call it grassroots just because a bunch of people supported it.

Grimm1 7y ago

Quelle suprise!