5 ms·

Or rather we don't agree with the notion that companies stand above the laws of a country. The USA has insane bias towards companies to the extent they get bett

Or rather we don't agree with the notion that companies stand above the laws of a country. The USA has insane bias towards companies to the extent they get better benefit as people and even qualify as people.

dwaite 6y ago
Obviously $1mil per infraction is a bit lopsided when the definition of which products are infracting is not clearly spelled out. Likewise, coordinating a review and implementing all measures in a 24h period is obviously not feasible when that hasn't happened over the last month(s). This was phrased as a threat in the article title, but I don't see how Amazon had any choice until implementation of measures is either done or they have an answer to a court appeal. Likewise, there could be a case to be made that measures should already be implemented, but there is no documentation in the article over what progress there has already happened. Per this court order and event, I again don't see another response by them. My understanding per the article is that this is not about applying a uniform set of safety standards, so there is no legal template we as outsiders can use - say, the safety standards implemented by their French competitors - to judge whether this order is or is not "fair". I also don't think it is my place to judge. Instead, Amazon has the right to determine whether or not they provide service within a country under that country's laws, and to raise awareness if _they_ feel the judicial system is giving illegal preferential treatment disguised in the context of crisis response. I don't see that as happening here either, though - at least not yet.
sneak 6y ago
Companies are made of people; it makes sense that the assemblage would have the same rights as the pieces.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  But it doesn't; no collective entity is equivalent to its pieces. In law or in practice. It's only an analogy.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Let me put it another way: companies don’t exist, they can’t act or think. Why should human beings, when at work, not have all of their human rights?
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      I have to guess at what you're referring to, since you're not specific, but let's say for example, you're asking why a company should be regulated in hiring and firing, since freedom of association is a human right. The obvious answer, to me, is that the hiring and firing involves the abstraction of the company, and is not predominantly a product of a human, but a system. When a manager fires someone, they're not acting as an individual human being, just as when a police officer coerces or shoots someone they aren't doing it based on universal rules for people. Your argument makes more sense when applied to a sole proprietor. And I think that the legal system recognizes this sort of thing because it makes sense. For instance, if you are renting out a room in your home, you aren't held to the same non-discrimination requirements (in the US) as otherwise.
      - sneak 6y ago
        > just as when a police officer coerces or shoots someone they aren't doing it based on universal rules for people Are you sure about that?
        perl4ever 6y ago
        Yes? It's a very common if not universal complaint among libertarian anarchist types that police and/or other government employees shouldn't be subject to different rules from the rest of us. It seems obvious that like it or not, they are in present society. I'm not suggesting I'm in favor or against it, just acknowledging that the rules for what's acceptable depend on what collective entity you're part of. It doesn't seem peculiar to me if there are always non-individual responsibilities to go with non-individual powers.
        6y ago

dwaite 6y ago

Obviously $1mil per infraction is a bit lopsided when the definition of which products are infracting is not clearly spelled out. Likewise, coordinating a review and implementing all measures in a 24h period is obviously not feasible when that hasn't happened over the last month(s). This was phrased as a threat in the article title, but I don't see how Amazon had any choice until implementation of measures is either done or they have an answer to a court appeal. Likewise, there could be a case to be made that measures should already be implemented, but there is no documentation in the article over what progress there has already happened. Per this court order and event, I again don't see another response by them. My understanding per the article is that this is not about applying a uniform set of safety standards, so there is no legal template we as outsiders can use - say, the safety standards implemented by their French competitors - to judge whether this order is or is not "fair". I also don't think it is my place to judge. Instead, Amazon has the right to determine whether or not they provide service within a country under that country's laws, and to raise awareness if _they_ feel the judicial system is giving illegal preferential treatment disguised in the context of crisis response. I don't see that as happening here either, though - at least not yet.

sneak 6y ago

Companies are made of people; it makes sense that the assemblage would have the same rights as the pieces.

perl4ever 6y ago
But it doesn't; no collective entity is equivalent to its pieces. In law or in practice. It's only an analogy.
- sneak 6y ago
  Let me put it another way: companies don’t exist, they can’t act or think. Why should human beings, when at work, not have all of their human rights?
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I have to guess at what you're referring to, since you're not specific, but let's say for example, you're asking why a company should be regulated in hiring and firing, since freedom of association is a human right. The obvious answer, to me, is that the hiring and firing involves the abstraction of the company, and is not predominantly a product of a human, but a system. When a manager fires someone, they're not acting as an individual human being, just as when a police officer coerces or shoots someone they aren't doing it based on universal rules for people. Your argument makes more sense when applied to a sole proprietor. And I think that the legal system recognizes this sort of thing because it makes sense. For instance, if you are renting out a room in your home, you aren't held to the same non-discrimination requirements (in the US) as otherwise.
    - sneak 6y ago
      > just as when a police officer coerces or shoots someone they aren't doing it based on universal rules for people Are you sure about that?
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        Yes? It's a very common if not universal complaint among libertarian anarchist types that police and/or other government employees shouldn't be subject to different rules from the rest of us. It seems obvious that like it or not, they are in present society. I'm not suggesting I'm in favor or against it, just acknowledging that the rules for what's acceptable depend on what collective entity you're part of. It doesn't seem peculiar to me if there are always non-individual responsibilities to go with non-individual powers.
        6y ago