3 ms·

> > But Amazon is the fifth-most-valuable company in the world, with one of the richest men on the planet at its helm, leaving little doubt that the company cou

> > But Amazon is the fifth-most-valuable company in the world, with one of the richest men on the planet at its helm, leaving little doubt that the company could be doing much more to ensure that its local philanthropy isn’t making life tougher for people on the front lines. > Bizarre hit piece. Do you really disagree with that paragraph though? It is not an opinion paragraph, it is just a series of statements of facts. Doesn't seem like a "hit piece" at all to me.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> it is just a series of statements of facts. It is a selection of facts intended to present an act of philanthropy as a PR liability. Systemically, it is why most restaurant groups throw food out instead of donating it. The latter should be the default move. But if donating invites more criticism than disposing, guess which one is incentivized.
- cryptoz 8y ago
  I don't agree with your analysis or analogy at all. Donating can be dangerous and it is important to recognize that and address it. It is on both the citizens of a place to vote for politicians who will make laws that makes it easier for restaurants to donate. A corporate giant like Amazon should take donations serioualy and carefully. I don't understand at all how this is anything remotely like a hit piece. Have some compassion for the homeless who everyone here, Amazon and the newspaper, are trying to help. Could Amazon do more, as the quoted paragraph suggests? Yes.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > It is on both the citizens of a place to vote for politicians who will make laws that makes it easier for restaurants to donate. A corporate giant like Amazon should take donations serioualy and carefully. Non sequitur. Nobody is discussing legal risks. Just PR ones. If I own a restaurant, and donating produces negative press, problems I would not have had to deal with had I defaulted to not donating, I'm going to be incentivized against donating. This piece isn't designed to help, and it doesn't help.
    - cryptoz 8y ago
      > Non sequitur. Nobody is discussing legal risks. Simply PR ones. What? This is a legal concern! You brought it up and it is a major legal concern across nearly all of America! > This piece isn't designed to help, and it doesn't help. You are wrong. More people are aware of problems they weren't aware of before. That is usefuuand that is helpful.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > You brought it up and it is a major legal concern across nearly all of America What is the legal concern I brought up?
        cryptoz 8y ago
        Restaurants donating extra food to the homeless is strictly illegal across much of the USA.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        When did I bring this up? In any case, this point is irrelevant. Businesses donating food isn't illegal in Seattle. Here we have a business donating food in Seattle. There is no legal concern. But they'll wake up to a PR itch on Tuesday. That problem would not have happened if they hadn't tried to help. The disincentivisation remains.
        icebraining 8y ago
        That doesn't seem to be the case, since the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act.
always_good 8y ago
"They should do more" is absolutely an inappropriate response to philanthropy.
lucio 8y ago
Those are facts mixed with opinions. Amazon could be doing nothing for charity, or Bezos could be donating all his belongings and income and living on the shelter himself. Every position on that spectrum is the prerogative of Bezos himself and/or the board. Anything they choose to do is OK.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> it is just a series of statements of facts. It is a selection of facts intended to present an act of philanthropy as a PR liability. Systemically, it is why most restaurant groups throw food out instead of donating it. The latter should be the default move. But if donating invites more criticism than disposing, guess which one is incentivized.

cryptoz 8y ago
I don't agree with your analysis or analogy at all. Donating can be dangerous and it is important to recognize that and address it. It is on both the citizens of a place to vote for politicians who will make laws that makes it easier for restaurants to donate. A corporate giant like Amazon should take donations serioualy and carefully. I don't understand at all how this is anything remotely like a hit piece. Have some compassion for the homeless who everyone here, Amazon and the newspaper, are trying to help. Could Amazon do more, as the quoted paragraph suggests? Yes.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > It is on both the citizens of a place to vote for politicians who will make laws that makes it easier for restaurants to donate. A corporate giant like Amazon should take donations serioualy and carefully. Non sequitur. Nobody is discussing legal risks. Just PR ones. If I own a restaurant, and donating produces negative press, problems I would not have had to deal with had I defaulted to not donating, I'm going to be incentivized against donating. This piece isn't designed to help, and it doesn't help.
  - cryptoz 8y ago
    > Non sequitur. Nobody is discussing legal risks. Simply PR ones. What? This is a legal concern! You brought it up and it is a major legal concern across nearly all of America! > This piece isn't designed to help, and it doesn't help. You are wrong. More people are aware of problems they weren't aware of before. That is usefuuand that is helpful.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > You brought it up and it is a major legal concern across nearly all of America What is the legal concern I brought up?
      - cryptoz 8y ago
        Restaurants donating extra food to the homeless is strictly illegal across much of the USA.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        When did I bring this up? In any case, this point is irrelevant. Businesses donating food isn't illegal in Seattle. Here we have a business donating food in Seattle. There is no legal concern. But they'll wake up to a PR itch on Tuesday. That problem would not have happened if they hadn't tried to help. The disincentivisation remains.
        icebraining 8y ago
        That doesn't seem to be the case, since the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act.

always_good 8y ago

"They should do more" is absolutely an inappropriate response to philanthropy.

lucio 8y ago

Those are facts mixed with opinions. Amazon could be doing nothing for charity, or Bezos could be donating all his belongings and income and living on the shelter himself. Every position on that spectrum is the prerogative of Bezos himself and/or the board. Anything they choose to do is OK.