4 ms·
The fact that they posted the e-mail from Amazon, so readers could direct the blame at them. You can’t read that blog post and say it’s the most unbiased and
by johnwheeler 9y ago
The fact that they posted the e-mail from Amazon, so readers could direct the blame at them. You can’t
read that blog post and say it’s the most unbiased and objective way they could have presented this, especially if they want to remain on good terms with Amazon, who has done nothing wrong at all.
- insensible 9y agoI thought it was 100% objective, straight across. I don't see any barbs or negativity toward Amazon whatsoever, just the facts about that situation and an honest discussion of the facts looking forward.
- s73v3r_ 9y agoI feel the phrasing of the title (the word "threatens", using the phrase "censorship circumvention", not mentioning that they're doing all that stuff without Amazon's consent) is definitely aimed at generating negative feeling toward Amazon.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 9y agoOne can have an opinion and disagree with Amazon without feeling entitled to anything from them. I'm not objective; it's my subjective opinion that you're wrong. That doesn't mean I feel entitled to have you change your mind.
- johnwheeler 9y ago"One can have an opinion and disagree with Amazon without feeling entitled to anything from them." That's a straw man. In this case, they don't only disagree, they also feel entitled; that's what I'm saying.
- icebraining 9y agoI understand; but you're saying you can tell they feel entitled by the fact that they're not objective or unbiased. And what I'm saying is that not being objective doesn't show they feel entitled. Maybe they feel entitled, but I don't think there's anything in the blog post showing that. All I see is (fairly mild) disagreement with Amazon's actions.
- glogla 9y agoThe blame is with Amazon. They decided to help censorship.
- s73v3r_ 9y agoNo, it isn't. Signal didn't ask Amazon's consent to be dragged into their battle.