3 ms·
I don’t see a clear definition of what is included or not for “vital” goods. That ambiguity just gives France or whomever the ability to be dissatisfied with Am
by yellow_postit 7y ago
I don’t see a clear definition of what is included or not for “vital” goods. That ambiguity just gives France or whomever the ability to be dissatisfied with Amazon no matter what they do.
It’s hard to cast Amazon as the villain here if France won’t provide a clear definition of vital.
Off the top of my head they could use Amazon and Google’s product taxonomy to explicitly identify categories that are allowed/not which would scope this further down to a, still challenging, classification and content moderation problem.
- DuskStar 7y agoUnfortunately, the government explicitly listing allowed and denied categories would result in people finding luxury goods that were still allowed, and condemning the government for that (expensive foods, for instance) - and simultaneously finding banned products that could be argued to vital, and blaming the government for that. Leaving it vague lets that blame be shifted to Amazon.
- lonelappde 7y agoThis is exactly what happened with Michigan's latest order to shut down non essential commerce. Paint and furniture were banned by name but most things weren't.
- vkou 7y ago> I don’t see a clear definition of what is included or not for “vital” goods. Read the shutdown orders, they will clarify this sort of stuff. Vital goods are goods that are necessary for human life, shelter, and the operation of businesses that have been declared vital. (Which are thoroughly enumerated in most shutdown orders). Most of Amazon's business, by that definition, ships vital goods. I don't think any western country has so far discriminated between vital goods going to vital businesses, versus non-vital household use, so most of their business is permissable...