3 ms·
you're argument is wholly misplaced. if it were a decision like "should we put this bin over on that shef?", then yes, it's reasonable to delegate to a rank-an
by clairity 7y ago
you're argument is wholly misplaced.
if it were a decision like "should we put this bin over on that shef?", then yes, it's reasonable to delegate to a rank-and-file employee.
"should we develop technology that can lead to a surveillance state?" is not one of those decisions.
that's a strategic decision entirely negotiated between the shareholders (via the board) and the management team, for which they should all be held accountable.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agoAlmost all useful technology could conceivably lead to better surveillance. Email is a great example. It is infeasibly expensive to open and read everyone's physical letters. But reading everyone's email is possible and is literally done in some very large countries. I believe that if the board of Amazon had more they wanted to say about this issue, either publicly or internally, they do not need a shareholder resolution to enable that -- especially a non-binding one. They can simply do so. So, the resolution's purpose is actually one of signalling the shareholder's stance on the technology being developed. Clearly, most shareholders agree with the board's implicit approval.