6 ms·

I feel like these panels always try to make you answer 'gotcha' type of questions without providing a full answer or context.

tracer4201 6y ago
This feels like hyperbole, though I hope Congress gets to the bottom of it if it’s really true. On one hand, I can see an employee who maybe has performance metrics that incentivize this behavior. Without sufficient oversight, any policy against using this data would become pointless. I can also see that Bezos wouldn’t want to make a strong claim guaranteeing it doesn’t happen. He would perjure himself if it’s occurred even once. I’m more interested to learn if it’s systemic or if it’s just outliers. One is a company incompetently benefiting from not enforcing its own policies whereas another is more egregious.
rocmcd 6y ago
This exactly. The line of questioning is very combative, and they will ‘claim back their time’ if your response doesn’t go along with their narrative. These hearings are more like televised platforms for them to create sound-bites they can use in their campaigns.
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  This is a game for two. Politicians try to score soundbites. Businessmen try to obscure misdeeds. Amazon admitted to using aggregated seller data for competitive purposes. That's not illegal, but it should be, and congress should fix the gaps in the laws. Since Bezos doesn't want this, he dragged the conversation into the weeds (the aggregated/non-aggregated distinction and the proving-a-negative discussion). That's fine. Everyone acted in their self-interest, as expected. What confuses me is how ridiculously effective the diversions were. This thread is full of people chasing the chaff. People who ought to know better.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    > This is a game for two It's a game where the politicians are in charge, subpoenaing the businessmen to come answer their questions, under their rules, at penalty of perjury. Of course the businessmen do their best to present their side, but let's not pretend it's an even playing field.
    - iaw 6y ago
      I see an advantage to the businessmen as the net outcome. It's still business as usual and they continue reaping handsome profits for questionable practices while addressing the accusations from their 'critics'.
    - salawat 6y ago
      >It's a game where the politicians are in charge, subpoenaing the businessmen to come answer their questions, under their rules, at penalty of perjury. >Of course the businessmen do their best to present their side, but let's not pretend it's an even playing field. Your response is odd. The fact perjury is a possible outcome if a knowingly misleading answer is given doesn't change the equation of the fundamental social interaction. Congresspeople are not fishing for soundbites. They have a legitimate interest in knowing what are the current practices being engaged in by major economic players. They need information pertinent to building consensus amongst their numbers to fulfill legislative mandate. The capacity to give a concise number, or the propensity to avoid answering the question speaks volumes more to the necessity of regulation than any candid response would.
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        > Congresspeople are not fishing for soundbites. I mean, if you watch the questioning, it's very clear that they are. Look at e.g. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' questioning of Mark Zuckerberg.
        salawat 6y ago
        I've watched previous testimonies of Zuckerberg, the Libra one was infuriating as someone who has worked in the financial industry. Suffice it to say if he spent half as much time giving candid answers instead of evading the question or burning the clock to get to the next Congressperson's question, I might have some more sympathy. As I recall AOC had particular difficulty getting a straight answer out of him back then too, as did several other Congresspeople, including a few who were far more reasonable, accommodating, and less incentivized to go down the route of theatrics than AOC, and asked fairly standard, straightforward questions. Those questions were met with answers which were evasive and vacuous on average; downright equivocations and deceptions at worst.
susiecambria 6y ago
Having been in this world, though on a smaller scale (state level), while the electeds may take every opportunity on the dais to create good soundbites, behind the scenes committee staff work to identify the right questions, get the answers, etc. The public may never see all the information gathered, or know that it has been gathered, staffers are smart.

tracer4201 6y ago

This feels like hyperbole, though I hope Congress gets to the bottom of it if it’s really true. On one hand, I can see an employee who maybe has performance metrics that incentivize this behavior. Without sufficient oversight, any policy against using this data would become pointless. I can also see that Bezos wouldn’t want to make a strong claim guaranteeing it doesn’t happen. He would perjure himself if it’s occurred even once. I’m more interested to learn if it’s systemic or if it’s just outliers. One is a company incompetently benefiting from not enforcing its own policies whereas another is more egregious.

rocmcd 6y ago

This exactly. The line of questioning is very combative, and they will ‘claim back their time’ if your response doesn’t go along with their narrative. These hearings are more like televised platforms for them to create sound-bites they can use in their campaigns.

jjoonathan 6y ago
This is a game for two. Politicians try to score soundbites. Businessmen try to obscure misdeeds. Amazon admitted to using aggregated seller data for competitive purposes. That's not illegal, but it should be, and congress should fix the gaps in the laws. Since Bezos doesn't want this, he dragged the conversation into the weeds (the aggregated/non-aggregated distinction and the proving-a-negative discussion). That's fine. Everyone acted in their self-interest, as expected. What confuses me is how ridiculously effective the diversions were. This thread is full of people chasing the chaff. People who ought to know better.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  > This is a game for two It's a game where the politicians are in charge, subpoenaing the businessmen to come answer their questions, under their rules, at penalty of perjury. Of course the businessmen do their best to present their side, but let's not pretend it's an even playing field.
  - iaw 6y ago
    I see an advantage to the businessmen as the net outcome. It's still business as usual and they continue reaping handsome profits for questionable practices while addressing the accusations from their 'critics'.
  - salawat 6y ago
    >It's a game where the politicians are in charge, subpoenaing the businessmen to come answer their questions, under their rules, at penalty of perjury. >Of course the businessmen do their best to present their side, but let's not pretend it's an even playing field. Your response is odd. The fact perjury is a possible outcome if a knowingly misleading answer is given doesn't change the equation of the fundamental social interaction. Congresspeople are not fishing for soundbites. They have a legitimate interest in knowing what are the current practices being engaged in by major economic players. They need information pertinent to building consensus amongst their numbers to fulfill legislative mandate. The capacity to give a concise number, or the propensity to avoid answering the question speaks volumes more to the necessity of regulation than any candid response would.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > Congresspeople are not fishing for soundbites. I mean, if you watch the questioning, it's very clear that they are. Look at e.g. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' questioning of Mark Zuckerberg.
      - salawat 6y ago
        I've watched previous testimonies of Zuckerberg, the Libra one was infuriating as someone who has worked in the financial industry. Suffice it to say if he spent half as much time giving candid answers instead of evading the question or burning the clock to get to the next Congressperson's question, I might have some more sympathy. As I recall AOC had particular difficulty getting a straight answer out of him back then too, as did several other Congresspeople, including a few who were far more reasonable, accommodating, and less incentivized to go down the route of theatrics than AOC, and asked fairly standard, straightforward questions. Those questions were met with answers which were evasive and vacuous on average; downright equivocations and deceptions at worst.

susiecambria 6y ago

Having been in this world, though on a smaller scale (state level), while the electeds may take every opportunity on the dais to create good soundbites, behind the scenes committee staff work to identify the right questions, get the answers, etc. The public may never see all the information gathered, or know that it has been gathered, staffers are smart.