4 ms·

> This is a top-of-the-front-page, well-researched article in a leading newspaper -- it's the kind of coverage that destroys hard-earned reputations built over

by berdon 7y ago

> This is a top-of-the-front-page, well-researched article in a leading newspaper -- it's the kind of coverage that destroys hard-earned reputations built over decades. It's the kind of thing that _should_ destroy reputations. But that doesn't happen all that much anymore. We're in a weird place with information and communication where shameful acts are accepted either in ambivalence, apathy, or bullheadedness.

ethbro 7y ago
> We're in a weird place with information and communication where shameful acts are accepted either in ambivalence, apathy, or bullheadedness. The 1980s?
- berdon 7y ago
  I don't know - maybe? Admittedly, I was just getting out of diapers at the tail end of the 80s. Perhaps this kind of thing revolves around the onset of new communication mediums and the general adoption and ease of use. Newspapers, easy to read, hard to publish - "trusted" source. Printing press and/or other technologies aid printing and trust drops. Radio, TV, internet follow.
- cr0sh 7y ago
  Depends on the act, and the accused, I guess. I'm sure similar things happened in the 1980s - I was a kid who didn't pay much attention to that kind of thing back then. But there were plenty of scandals of a lesser nature that would ruin people, with even a hint of impropriety. Again - it depended on the act, the person(s) involved, and perhaps the way our society's wind was blowing (as always). I can guarantee you, though, that some of things we currently witness on a daily basis would have absolutely destroyed people, careers, brands, you name it - even just 10 years ago, yet today it's just "oh, that's nice - let's see what happens tomorrow" - yesterday's scandal already forgotten. Again - it does depend on the act and the person; you can think about many recent people who have "been in the news" for similar accusations, if not all-but-proved acts, and wonder "Why this guy, and not this other one?" For some reason, we skewer only a selected few, and in many cases, not the ones who really need and deserve it, either.
Liquix 7y ago
It's also the matter of convenience / personal life impact - Amazon is ingrained in many people's weekly routine at this point. It's not that people genuinely don't care about an article like this, they just don't care enough to justify negatively impacting their life. Dale Carnegie on the concerns of the individual: "A person’s toothache means more to that person than a famine in China which kills a million people. A boil on one’s neck interests one more than forty earthquakes in Africa."
- pmiller2 7y ago
  For me, it's that Amazon has virtually everything. I would be much happier if I could buy everything I buy from Amazon from Costco instead, but Costco's model isn't the same as Amazon's "A to Z" model. Costco wants to offer good deals on a smaller selection of stuff, rather than go for a broad selection. It also doesn't hurt that Prime Video is bundled with Prime. On a per annum basis, Prime costs me about 2/3 what Netflix does, but I'd say I get roughly half to a third the value of Netflix out of Prime Video alone.
  - wasdfff 7y ago
    Ive switched to specialist retailers. Quality is higher and selection in that niche is wider than amazons offerings in that category. Shipping far more reliable as well from a competent carrier who isn’t throwing piss bottles out the window onto my street and stealing packages.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      Which specialty retailers do you recommend? I have all my stuff sent to a PO box because I live in an apartment building with no secure way to deliver packages, but, yes, I have noticed that Amazon's contracted delivery service (Amazon Logistics) is pretty incompetent. For the longest time, I couldn't get them to deliver properly to my box, even though I said in the extra info section that it's a business with business hours.

by berdon 7y ago

ethbro 7y ago

> We're in a weird place with information and communication where shameful acts are accepted either in ambivalence, apathy, or bullheadedness. The 1980s?

berdon 7y ago
I don't know - maybe? Admittedly, I was just getting out of diapers at the tail end of the 80s. Perhaps this kind of thing revolves around the onset of new communication mediums and the general adoption and ease of use. Newspapers, easy to read, hard to publish - "trusted" source. Printing press and/or other technologies aid printing and trust drops. Radio, TV, internet follow.
cr0sh 7y ago
Depends on the act, and the accused, I guess. I'm sure similar things happened in the 1980s - I was a kid who didn't pay much attention to that kind of thing back then. But there were plenty of scandals of a lesser nature that would ruin people, with even a hint of impropriety. Again - it depended on the act, the person(s) involved, and perhaps the way our society's wind was blowing (as always). I can guarantee you, though, that some of things we currently witness on a daily basis would have absolutely destroyed people, careers, brands, you name it - even just 10 years ago, yet today it's just "oh, that's nice - let's see what happens tomorrow" - yesterday's scandal already forgotten. Again - it does depend on the act and the person; you can think about many recent people who have "been in the news" for similar accusations, if not all-but-proved acts, and wonder "Why this guy, and not this other one?" For some reason, we skewer only a selected few, and in many cases, not the ones who really need and deserve it, either.

Liquix 7y ago

It's also the matter of convenience / personal life impact - Amazon is ingrained in many people's weekly routine at this point. It's not that people genuinely don't care about an article like this, they just don't care enough to justify negatively impacting their life. Dale Carnegie on the concerns of the individual: "A person’s toothache means more to that person than a famine in China which kills a million people. A boil on one’s neck interests one more than forty earthquakes in Africa."

pmiller2 7y ago
For me, it's that Amazon has virtually everything. I would be much happier if I could buy everything I buy from Amazon from Costco instead, but Costco's model isn't the same as Amazon's "A to Z" model. Costco wants to offer good deals on a smaller selection of stuff, rather than go for a broad selection. It also doesn't hurt that Prime Video is bundled with Prime. On a per annum basis, Prime costs me about 2/3 what Netflix does, but I'd say I get roughly half to a third the value of Netflix out of Prime Video alone.
- wasdfff 7y ago
  Ive switched to specialist retailers. Quality is higher and selection in that niche is wider than amazons offerings in that category. Shipping far more reliable as well from a competent carrier who isn’t throwing piss bottles out the window onto my street and stealing packages.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Which specialty retailers do you recommend? I have all my stuff sent to a PO box because I live in an apartment building with no secure way to deliver packages, but, yes, I have noticed that Amazon's contracted delivery service (Amazon Logistics) is pretty incompetent. For the longest time, I couldn't get them to deliver properly to my box, even though I said in the extra info section that it's a business with business hours.