8 ms·

It’s a nice touch by The Guardian to write this article but given how much Amazon has benefited from this epidemic, I do not think any kind of individual vigila

It’s a nice touch by The Guardian to write this article but given how much Amazon has benefited from this epidemic, I do not think any kind of individual vigilantism will really work here. You’re not even a drop in the bucket for them and most people do not care. If anything, thanks to them being a go-to platform, they’ve single handedly allowed a lot of third party shops to sell their inventory, and have come out net positive as a result. I don’t mean to sound as an apologist saying this - just stating the bloody obvious. The “vote with your wallet” rhetoric doesn’t work. It’s half past feel good bullshit. If you want these companies to change it must be codified into the law and backed up by hard time. But good luck with that, since China is a massive trade partner and every country is turning a blind eye to them imprisoning people in concentration camps and harvesting organs. It’s unlikely The States are going to have a change of heart anytime soon.

Aperocky 6y ago
vote with your wallet is like actual voting. Where you inconvenience yourself for some time to line up in a booth to select someone who you more likely just hated less. Now imagine doing that all day every day, the inconveniences each time might be smaller, but hey, Amazon is always there. The 'voter turnout' is going to drop to 0 real fast.
fossuser 6y ago
I think it's feel good bullshit in part because the entire narrative is bullshit, driven by an anti-tech media stance that is not actually well represented in the real world. Most people are happy with Amazon and like the service they provide - this kind of thing is a non-story. I say this as someone who buys directly from suppliers like Dell or Logitech when I think there's a risk to getting repackaged or counterfeit items from Amazon, but the experience is often worse (Dell monitors took 5 weeks to arrive). I think these articles are a symptom of something else, but I'm not quite sure what it is. It feels like a political or tribal position, anti-large company, or anti-success? - I'm not quite sure, but I think there's an underlying theme that drives these types of articles and it isn't what they're directly about. They're okay with a small under-dog company story, but if you become large and successful then you're automatically written about in the most uncharitable way possible.
- Zenst 6y ago
  The aspect they didn't even mention the digital service tax of 2% that was designed to target this whole Amazon tax aspect. Well, that does seem odd - so article is clearly slanted. THIS:- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-the-digital-services-tax/digital-services-tax https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-t... Effective from 1st April 2020 and directly affects Amazon in the UK.
- AznHisoka 6y ago
  Exactly. For every vocal critic of Amazon, there are thousands who quietly buy everything they need from Amazon, and are satisfied with it. The critics are just the most vocal. But they are by far the minority.. by a long shot.
- II2II 6y ago
  As the article pointed out, there are reasons to avoid Amazon outside of this anti-tech stance. These reasons may not be relevant to some people, but they will be relevant to others. Those others are likely why this article is popping up now. In the past, people who did not like Amazon would simply shop locally. Now these people have to explore online options. Of course, Amazon has the mindshare so people may not think of the alternatives. People who seek alternatives may find it difficult to determine who is reputable and who is not, or simply who has their act in order to handle online orders efficiently, which also works in Amazon's benefit. Regardless of how you view their desire to shop elsewhere, that desire still exists. The Guardian was simply facilitating the process for people who want alternatives.
- cleandreams 6y ago
  No. I know a lot of people upset with Amazon in large part because they have devastated Main Street. Convenience is not the only human value worthy of consideration. I do use them sometimes, but even then, for some products it's a bad experience because you get fakes.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    How much has Amazon really decimated "Main Street?" Wasn't it already decimated by the big box retailers and Wal-Mart?
baby_wipe 6y ago
> given how much Amazon has benefited from this epidemic It's important to also recognize how individuals and families have benefited from Amazon during this time, including myself.
third_I 6y ago
About China. There's a growing sense that we ("the free world", western countries + usual friends like Japan, Oz, etc) are about to enter a cold war with China, though, following the COVID-19 debacle.[1] The CPC's ultimate responsibility will likely define the magnitude of that (which may range from mild such as tariffs, to hard e.g. Soviet era, passing by sanctions of various degrees, forbidding companies to even trade let alone joint-venture in China, etc). Independently of diplomacy, the particular conditions of a pandemic seem to call for less dependence on foreign powers, at least on a continental basis (some capacity for autarky on a temporary basis). Independently of the above, history shows that out of the 16 last times there was a shift in world's first GDP (here US → China), no less than 12 led to war.[2] Again independently, the general sentiment towards China has deteriorated faster than ever in 2019 (before crisis), due to the White House posture notably (trade tensions, mutual racism/xenophobia).[3][4] This went even lower recently.[5] A key factor notably, in my opinion, is that anti-China sentiment used to be correlated with age: people over 50 were more likely to have such a view, while younger categories held a more favorable view; but recent events are likely to sway the opinion across the board. Anyone old enough to have a political opinion isn't likely to "forget" COVID-19 or "forgive" wrongdoings in the matter if responsibility is proven in the public eye. There is little substance to redeem any of these facts, I'm afraid. ____ A personal take on this [Disclaimer: opinion still in flux as information comes in. Strong conviction, but loosely held.] I don't see how China doesn't lose most of their international credibility in this affair. Once global production and logistics flows are restructured to take China out of the equation (it'll take years, a decade at least I think), it will take an even longer time to come back, if ever (other superpowers, more worthy of trust, may emerge in a generation's time). It will cost the world a lot, may prolong the depression much more than if we looked the other way, but deaths in the 6 figures (possibly an order of magnitude more by then, even two...) is simply unacceptable, reason enough to do it, to isolate them and take the collective hit. We can take it, the combined power of the world minus China is still overwhelmingly capable to drive growth. There are tons of candidates where investment will flock to fund factories, and some of these will come back 'home' for a number of strategic sectors. I'm afraid China's economic appeal has all but collapsed for this generation (next 10-20 years). I don't think most people realize it yet, but the pile of arguments for a cold war is damning, historically aligned with most precedents, and actually a rare occurrence of too much at once. (Let us pray there was no malign intent towards the world, for that would likely remove the "cold" adjective above.) China may just have lost its shot at becoming the world's "leader", and it seems they only have themselves to blame, as their lack of transparency and their negligence for human life are cold hard choices they still keep making, some 30 years after Tiananmen. We hoped China was ready and could change, we thought it would evolve towards a more trustable partner, but instead it maintained its internal dystopia more strongly than ever, and actually engaged actively in trying to change us (remember how, very recently, they were trying to force the NBA and so many corporations to essentially bend to the CPC's propaganda... needless to say, that ship has most likely sailed for good). If we needed a reminder (apparently we did), authoritarianism kills. So this: > But good luck with that, since China is a massive trade partner and every country is turning a blind eye to them imprisoning people in concentration camps and harvesting organs. It’s unlikely The States are going to have a change of heart anytime soon. Seems incredibly anachronic to me. It was true in 2019, but that world is now over, for good. I agree with everything else you said. ____ [1]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3081601/coronavirus-infects-china-us-relations-blame-game-over https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3081601/co... [2]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/ [3]: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/08/13/u-s-views-of-china-turn-sharply-negative-amid-trade-tensions/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/08/13/u-s-views-of-c... [4]: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/12/05/attitudes-toward-china-2019/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/12/05/attitudes-towa... [5]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-public-opinion-toward-china-is-at-an-all-time-low-and-its-not-solely-about-the-coronavirus-2020-04-13 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-public-opinion-toward-c...
GarrisonPrime 6y ago
And how do you propose we enforce your vision of fairness? By gunpoint? Your phrasing suggests so.
- russler23 6y ago
  Fairness at gunpoint is law in a nutshell. Maybe it should surprise us, that our species isn’t good by nature.
  - uoaei 6y ago
    "Laws are enforced by threat of violence." If you don't believe this, try to leave the area after a cop wants to detain you.
greenie_beans 6y ago
I disagree. Economic boycotts were crucial for the success of the Civil Rights movement in America

Aperocky 6y ago

vote with your wallet is like actual voting. Where you inconvenience yourself for some time to line up in a booth to select someone who you more likely just hated less. Now imagine doing that all day every day, the inconveniences each time might be smaller, but hey, Amazon is always there. The 'voter turnout' is going to drop to 0 real fast.

fossuser 6y ago

I think it's feel good bullshit in part because the entire narrative is bullshit, driven by an anti-tech media stance that is not actually well represented in the real world. Most people are happy with Amazon and like the service they provide - this kind of thing is a non-story. I say this as someone who buys directly from suppliers like Dell or Logitech when I think there's a risk to getting repackaged or counterfeit items from Amazon, but the experience is often worse (Dell monitors took 5 weeks to arrive). I think these articles are a symptom of something else, but I'm not quite sure what it is. It feels like a political or tribal position, anti-large company, or anti-success? - I'm not quite sure, but I think there's an underlying theme that drives these types of articles and it isn't what they're directly about. They're okay with a small under-dog company story, but if you become large and successful then you're automatically written about in the most uncharitable way possible.

Zenst 6y ago
The aspect they didn't even mention the digital service tax of 2% that was designed to target this whole Amazon tax aspect. Well, that does seem odd - so article is clearly slanted. THIS:- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-the-digital-services-tax/digital-services-tax https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-t... Effective from 1st April 2020 and directly affects Amazon in the UK.
AznHisoka 6y ago
Exactly. For every vocal critic of Amazon, there are thousands who quietly buy everything they need from Amazon, and are satisfied with it. The critics are just the most vocal. But they are by far the minority.. by a long shot.
II2II 6y ago
As the article pointed out, there are reasons to avoid Amazon outside of this anti-tech stance. These reasons may not be relevant to some people, but they will be relevant to others. Those others are likely why this article is popping up now. In the past, people who did not like Amazon would simply shop locally. Now these people have to explore online options. Of course, Amazon has the mindshare so people may not think of the alternatives. People who seek alternatives may find it difficult to determine who is reputable and who is not, or simply who has their act in order to handle online orders efficiently, which also works in Amazon's benefit. Regardless of how you view their desire to shop elsewhere, that desire still exists. The Guardian was simply facilitating the process for people who want alternatives.
cleandreams 6y ago
No. I know a lot of people upset with Amazon in large part because they have devastated Main Street. Convenience is not the only human value worthy of consideration. I do use them sometimes, but even then, for some products it's a bad experience because you get fakes.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  How much has Amazon really decimated "Main Street?" Wasn't it already decimated by the big box retailers and Wal-Mart?

baby_wipe 6y ago

> given how much Amazon has benefited from this epidemic It's important to also recognize how individuals and families have benefited from Amazon during this time, including myself.

third_I 6y ago

About China. There's a growing sense that we ("the free world", western countries + usual friends like Japan, Oz, etc) are about to enter a cold war with China, though, following the COVID-19 debacle.[1] The CPC's ultimate responsibility will likely define the magnitude of that (which may range from mild such as tariffs, to hard e.g. Soviet era, passing by sanctions of various degrees, forbidding companies to even trade let alone joint-venture in China, etc). Independently of diplomacy, the particular conditions of a pandemic seem to call for less dependence on foreign powers, at least on a continental basis (some capacity for autarky on a temporary basis). Independently of the above, history shows that out of the 16 last times there was a shift in world's first GDP (here US → China), no less than 12 led to war.[2] Again independently, the general sentiment towards China has deteriorated faster than ever in 2019 (before crisis), due to the White House posture notably (trade tensions, mutual racism/xenophobia).[3][4] This went even lower recently.[5] A key factor notably, in my opinion, is that anti-China sentiment used to be correlated with age: people over 50 were more likely to have such a view, while younger categories held a more favorable view; but recent events are likely to sway the opinion across the board. Anyone old enough to have a political opinion isn't likely to "forget" COVID-19 or "forgive" wrongdoings in the matter if responsibility is proven in the public eye. There is little substance to redeem any of these facts, I'm afraid. ____ A personal take on this [Disclaimer: opinion still in flux as information comes in. Strong conviction, but loosely held.] I don't see how China doesn't lose most of their international credibility in this affair. Once global production and logistics flows are restructured to take China out of the equation (it'll take years, a decade at least I think), it will take an even longer time to come back, if ever (other superpowers, more worthy of trust, may emerge in a generation's time). It will cost the world a lot, may prolong the depression much more than if we looked the other way, but deaths in the 6 figures (possibly an order of magnitude more by then, even two...) is simply unacceptable, reason enough to do it, to isolate them and take the collective hit. We can take it, the combined power of the world minus China is still overwhelmingly capable to drive growth. There are tons of candidates where investment will flock to fund factories, and some of these will come back 'home' for a number of strategic sectors. I'm afraid China's economic appeal has all but collapsed for this generation (next 10-20 years). I don't think most people realize it yet, but the pile of arguments for a cold war is damning, historically aligned with most precedents, and actually a rare occurrence of too much at once. (Let us pray there was no malign intent towards the world, for that would likely remove the "cold" adjective above.) China may just have lost its shot at becoming the world's "leader", and it seems they only have themselves to blame, as their lack of transparency and their negligence for human life are cold hard choices they still keep making, some 30 years after Tiananmen. We hoped China was ready and could change, we thought it would evolve towards a more trustable partner, but instead it maintained its internal dystopia more strongly than ever, and actually engaged actively in trying to change us (remember how, very recently, they were trying to force the NBA and so many corporations to essentially bend to the CPC's propaganda... needless to say, that ship has most likely sailed for good). If we needed a reminder (apparently we did), authoritarianism kills. So this: > But good luck with that, since China is a massive trade partner and every country is turning a blind eye to them imprisoning people in concentration camps and harvesting organs. It’s unlikely The States are going to have a change of heart anytime soon. Seems incredibly anachronic to me. It was true in 2019, but that world is now over, for good. I agree with everything else you said. ____ [1]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3081601/coronavirus-infects-china-us-relations-blame-game-over https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3081601/co... [2]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/ [3]: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/08/13/u-s-views-of-china-turn-sharply-negative-amid-trade-tensions/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/08/13/u-s-views-of-c... [4]: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/12/05/attitudes-toward-china-2019/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/12/05/attitudes-towa... [5]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-public-opinion-toward-china-is-at-an-all-time-low-and-its-not-solely-about-the-coronavirus-2020-04-13 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-public-opinion-toward-c...

GarrisonPrime 6y ago

And how do you propose we enforce your vision of fairness? By gunpoint? Your phrasing suggests so.

russler23 6y ago
Fairness at gunpoint is law in a nutshell. Maybe it should surprise us, that our species isn’t good by nature.
- uoaei 6y ago
  "Laws are enforced by threat of violence." If you don't believe this, try to leave the area after a cop wants to detain you.

greenie_beans 6y ago

I disagree. Economic boycotts were crucial for the success of the Civil Rights movement in America