5 ms·

I'm not sure how/if you're inferring that from this incident. The ban was caused by a delivery driver reporting a racist doorbell interaction. It would have be

I'm not sure how/if you're inferring that from this incident. The ban was caused by a delivery driver reporting a racist doorbell interaction. It would have been better for Amazon if they reviewed that footage before acting, but it seems like they weren't able (especially because they asked to be sent it by the accused).

scrum-treats 3y ago
This is "according to Amazon," akin to "trust me bro." We know Amazon will make up anything. Hence, lawsuit to discover the facts beyond Amazon's random email. Edit: not sure why this is downvoted as there is much evidence to confirm this position of Amazon willful omission of truth, and downright lying (e.g., "our employees don't pee in bottles" for warehouse and delivery employees, "this account registered too many returns" for accounts that show under 10 returns over multiple years).
- jwestbury 3y ago
  I worked at Amazon for over five years, both in AWS tech support, and as a systems engineer and SRE (well, their version of SRE). I hate the company. I actively attempt to sabotage their recruiting efforts -- I respond to people on LinkedIn telling them to take any other job offer if at all possible. I've cancelled my Prime account, and I don't order from them unless I can't get a product elsewhere. About the only Amazon product I actively and intentionally use anymore is Audible. Seriously, fuck Amazon. But Amazon is pretty committed to customer privacy, and in many cases it is genuinely impossible for them to obtain access to data. Obviously, I can't provide technical details here, so you'll have to to just trust me -- but I promise you, there's a good chance they're being honest about not having access to this data without a request to the customer.
- Fernicia 3y ago
  Fine, you may have strong priors against Amazon, but don't act like evidence to the contrary is supporting your position.
  - scrum-treats 3y ago
    > Fine, you may have strong priors against Amazon, but don't act like evidence to the contrary is supporting your position. Apologies, however I don't understand your position. To me this reads as word salad. (1) There is no evidence to the contrary. (2) You've made a blanket assumption that I have strong priors against Amazon. If you could reword your statement I am happy to try and understand what your point (assuming there is one).
    - interroboink 3y ago
      This is just a drive-by comment from an outsider, but in case it helps you: When you say "We know Amazon will make up anything.", it comes across (to me, at least) as an over-broad statement. The sort of statement someone with strong priors against Amazon would make. We _don't_ know that. You cite some valid examples of Amazon being sleazy, but even if you listed 100 examples, we still don't know that. Examples just mean they have made up some things, at some times — not everything, all the time. I imagine you were just using hyperbolic language for effect, but that's just my 2¢ POV, in case it helps you avoid being misinterpreted in the future (:
      - wenc 3y ago
        I know we shouldn’t comment on comments but I appreciate this rigorous and even-handed reasoning. Comments that are reactionary and unnuanced (“all big tech is bad! Because they’ve done this in the past.”) do not contribute to the discussion and are merely venting. I distrust comments made on this type narrative thinking that doesn’t address the precise issue at hand.
PeterisP 3y ago
IMHO it absolutely does not matter what the internal investigation determined and how the doorbell interaction went, it is unacceptable to disable the purchased equipment no matter what - even if they were literally convicted of a felony. If a company wants to stop future sales to a certain customer, that's fine, but all past purchases should still work.
briandear 3y ago
Is saying racist things illegal? [in the USA] If you said something racist on an iPhone telephone call, would that presumably allow Apple to lock you out of your devices?

scrum-treats 3y ago

This is "according to Amazon," akin to "trust me bro." We know Amazon will make up anything. Hence, lawsuit to discover the facts beyond Amazon's random email. Edit: not sure why this is downvoted as there is much evidence to confirm this position of Amazon willful omission of truth, and downright lying (e.g., "our employees don't pee in bottles" for warehouse and delivery employees, "this account registered too many returns" for accounts that show under 10 returns over multiple years).

jwestbury 3y ago
I worked at Amazon for over five years, both in AWS tech support, and as a systems engineer and SRE (well, their version of SRE). I hate the company. I actively attempt to sabotage their recruiting efforts -- I respond to people on LinkedIn telling them to take any other job offer if at all possible. I've cancelled my Prime account, and I don't order from them unless I can't get a product elsewhere. About the only Amazon product I actively and intentionally use anymore is Audible. Seriously, fuck Amazon. But Amazon is pretty committed to customer privacy, and in many cases it is genuinely impossible for them to obtain access to data. Obviously, I can't provide technical details here, so you'll have to to just trust me -- but I promise you, there's a good chance they're being honest about not having access to this data without a request to the customer.
Fernicia 3y ago
Fine, you may have strong priors against Amazon, but don't act like evidence to the contrary is supporting your position.
- scrum-treats 3y ago
  > Fine, you may have strong priors against Amazon, but don't act like evidence to the contrary is supporting your position. Apologies, however I don't understand your position. To me this reads as word salad. (1) There is no evidence to the contrary. (2) You've made a blanket assumption that I have strong priors against Amazon. If you could reword your statement I am happy to try and understand what your point (assuming there is one).
  - interroboink 3y ago
    This is just a drive-by comment from an outsider, but in case it helps you: When you say "We know Amazon will make up anything.", it comes across (to me, at least) as an over-broad statement. The sort of statement someone with strong priors against Amazon would make. We _don't_ know that. You cite some valid examples of Amazon being sleazy, but even if you listed 100 examples, we still don't know that. Examples just mean they have made up some things, at some times — not everything, all the time. I imagine you were just using hyperbolic language for effect, but that's just my 2¢ POV, in case it helps you avoid being misinterpreted in the future (:
    - wenc 3y ago
      I know we shouldn’t comment on comments but I appreciate this rigorous and even-handed reasoning. Comments that are reactionary and unnuanced (“all big tech is bad! Because they’ve done this in the past.”) do not contribute to the discussion and are merely venting. I distrust comments made on this type narrative thinking that doesn’t address the precise issue at hand.

PeterisP 3y ago

IMHO it absolutely does not matter what the internal investigation determined and how the doorbell interaction went, it is unacceptable to disable the purchased equipment no matter what - even if they were literally convicted of a felony. If a company wants to stop future sales to a certain customer, that's fine, but all past purchases should still work.

briandear 3y ago

Is saying racist things illegal? [in the USA] If you said something racist on an iPhone telephone call, would that presumably allow Apple to lock you out of your devices?