5 ms·

WP reported Amazon stated they violated company policies. That is probably true too ( talking to media or some such ). https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolog

WP reported Amazon stated they violated company policies. That is probably true too ( talking to media or some such ). https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-workers-fired/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-...

kenforthewin 7y ago
I wonder why the Washington Post would want to stress that they violated company policies. Not sure since it's behind a paywall.
- AimForTheBushes 7y ago
  They don't want to feel Bezos wrath.
- tptacek 7y ago
  The WaPo article is unfavorable to Amazon, puts "violated company policies" in quotes, buries the detail in the end of the article, and gives the employees quotes to rebut Amazon's policies. These kinds of superficial dismissive comments crud up the threads. You should at least read the article --- you say you didn't, due to the paywall --- before writing like this.
  - kenforthewin 7y ago
    My comment was a bit on the nose but the point is valid, there's no good reason to trust an article that's critical of Amazon when the paper is owned by Bezos.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  Don't you feel a little...silly...making accusations about something that you haven't even looked at? WaPo did not "stress that they violated company policies". There are two short sentences in the middle of the article about Amazon's reason for firing, followed by a disclaimer that Bezos owns WaPo. Much more of the article is devoted to the fired employees belief that she was fired for her climate change activism, and not for violating Amazon policies. Including a heart breaking "I'm doing it all for you, kiddo" scene.
  - kenforthewin 7y ago
    I think it's a little silly to take an article that's critical of Amazon seriously when the paper is owned by Jeff Bezos. There are plenty of other sources on the topic including the Reuters article above, which is not behind a paywall.
    - rochester46 7y ago
      It's not totally unreasonable to be skeptical of WaPo in this story, but you are failing to recognize that the entire reason people are posting the WaPo article to begin with is that it includes much more details about this story than the Reuters article does. There aren't "plenty of other sources on the topic", since those other sources don't include the same info, and especially since all of the other sources reporting on it (Reuters, for example) are getting their info from the WaPo anyway.
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      > it's a little silly to take an article that's critical of Amazon seriously when the paper is owned by Jeff Bezos That wasn't the question. The fact is that you felt comfortable asserting a certain tone in the article that you admittedly didn't even read, and then the article didn't even have that tone. You're moving the goalposts now by just saying you should blanket not accept any WaPo reporting about Amazon. Which is fine. But that wasn't your original claim.
droithomme 7y ago
Newspapers owned by Bezos are not a reliable or non-laughable source on this story. Also the paywall stuff is getting old, posting paywall links is just spam.
- jshevek 7y ago
  I also tire of paywalled links, as they stratify the community by ease of access. In case this helps anyone, Brave is able to view the article just by toggling 'block scripts' Edit: Presumably Firefox with a script blocking add-on would also work.

kenforthewin 7y ago

I wonder why the Washington Post would want to stress that they violated company policies. Not sure since it's behind a paywall.

AimForTheBushes 7y ago
They don't want to feel Bezos wrath.
tptacek 7y ago
The WaPo article is unfavorable to Amazon, puts "violated company policies" in quotes, buries the detail in the end of the article, and gives the employees quotes to rebut Amazon's policies. These kinds of superficial dismissive comments crud up the threads. You should at least read the article --- you say you didn't, due to the paywall --- before writing like this.
- kenforthewin 7y ago
  My comment was a bit on the nose but the point is valid, there's no good reason to trust an article that's critical of Amazon when the paper is owned by Bezos.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
oh_sigh 7y ago
Don't you feel a little...silly...making accusations about something that you haven't even looked at? WaPo did not "stress that they violated company policies". There are two short sentences in the middle of the article about Amazon's reason for firing, followed by a disclaimer that Bezos owns WaPo. Much more of the article is devoted to the fired employees belief that she was fired for her climate change activism, and not for violating Amazon policies. Including a heart breaking "I'm doing it all for you, kiddo" scene.
- kenforthewin 7y ago
  I think it's a little silly to take an article that's critical of Amazon seriously when the paper is owned by Jeff Bezos. There are plenty of other sources on the topic including the Reuters article above, which is not behind a paywall.
  - rochester46 7y ago
    It's not totally unreasonable to be skeptical of WaPo in this story, but you are failing to recognize that the entire reason people are posting the WaPo article to begin with is that it includes much more details about this story than the Reuters article does. There aren't "plenty of other sources on the topic", since those other sources don't include the same info, and especially since all of the other sources reporting on it (Reuters, for example) are getting their info from the WaPo anyway.
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    > it's a little silly to take an article that's critical of Amazon seriously when the paper is owned by Jeff Bezos That wasn't the question. The fact is that you felt comfortable asserting a certain tone in the article that you admittedly didn't even read, and then the article didn't even have that tone. You're moving the goalposts now by just saying you should blanket not accept any WaPo reporting about Amazon. Which is fine. But that wasn't your original claim.

droithomme 7y ago

Newspapers owned by Bezos are not a reliable or non-laughable source on this story. Also the paywall stuff is getting old, posting paywall links is just spam.

jshevek 7y ago
I also tire of paywalled links, as they stratify the community by ease of access. In case this helps anyone, Brave is able to view the article just by toggling 'block scripts' Edit: Presumably Firefox with a script blocking add-on would also work.