3 ms·
Well the article is consistent with the ones you posted. I don't see any other side of the story. It's rather a continuation of the same story. “Our interpreta
by mekoka 7y ago
Well the article is consistent with the ones you posted. I don't see any other side of the story. It's rather a continuation of the same story.
“Our interpretation suggests that we may be forced to suspend the activity of our distribution centers in France,” Amazon said in a statement. “The court gave categories that are very general and create ambiguity that would be too hard to implement, this is a complex business to run,” a spokeswoman for Amazon told Bloomberg.
Amazon isn’t able to reduce its activity and must shut down completely “because of the terms and conditions of the court order, especially because of their ambiguity and the absence of definition,” the e-commerce giant said in an internal memo that was seen by Bloomberg. The company will suspend activity at its fulfillment centers for an “initial period” of five days starting on April 16, it said.
5 days, with 100% of their pay btw. That does not sound like a "threat" to me. Why frame it as such?
- forgotmylogin2 7y ago"Threat" is a one of the biggest weasel words I see used by the media to influence their readers. If the subject of the article is meant to be sympathetic, the media will instead use the word "warn" which is more neutral. If the subject is meant to be a villain, they'll use "threat" since it has a connotation of violence. This headline could have easily been written as "Amazon states it may suspend French deliveries ..." but that doesn't portray Amazon as negatively as the author wanted. Amazon is meant to be the villain in this article.