8 ms·

I've found that many people will spend a lot of time and energy defending large companies (and often their CEOs) against perceived bullying. Amazon, Tesla, Elon

by zht 3y ago

I've found that many people will spend a lot of time and energy defending large companies (and often their CEOs) against perceived bullying. Amazon, Tesla, Elon, Meta, etc etc. I don't really understand it.

vasilipupkin 3y ago
and others spend a lot of time attacking large companies simply because they are large. In this case, AMZN. AMZN is like the cheapest place to buy things online. But it's not the only place. So, why is FTC going after them?
- sitzkrieg 3y ago
  well, there is an entire article highlighting each of their reasons if you are so inclined
  - vasilipupkin 3y ago
    yeah, I am saying these reasons don't seem to make sense, since AMZN is not a monopoly because other online sellers exist and physical stores exist
- lancesells 3y ago
  > others spend a lot of time attacking large companies simply because they are large This isn't the FTC's complaint but search "How Amazon treats their workers" and see why large companies get attacked. Typically the only way you're going to become this large is by abusing people in some sort of way. Amazon abuses their workers, their sellers, etc. Meta abuses their users. Google abuses their users. Uber abuses their drivers. I would love to see 20 Amazons where half have a decent quality of life for workers compared to 1 Amazon where it's just awful for everyone except maybe consumers (debatable), executives, and tech workers.
  - vasilipupkin 3y ago
    absurd. Nobody is forcing anyone to work for AMZN or Google or Uber. People would simply quit if these companies were actually abusing them
    - kmeisthax 3y ago
      Yes they are forced to work. If you don't have a job you starve, that's how our economy works. That's a very soft form of force (specifically, a sin of omission), but it is still force. Likewise, quitting your job is extremely disruptive and carries risk of bankruptcy if you can't get on to another employer in time. It's not simply a matter of "switch to the best offer available".
      - vasilipupkin 3y ago
        I was alive before Uber, AMZN existed and nobody starved, people just worked elsewhere, so this assertion is just not true. People have to work, but they don't have to work for AMZN, they didn't before it existed. Sure, quitting is disruptive, but people are not actually forced to work for any company, come on.
        lancesells 3y ago
        You don't think the large companies that existed before Amazon abused those workers? Wal-Mart never did anything wrong to their workers? It's a repeating playbook.
    - olyjohn 3y ago
      Have you seen Uber's turnover rate? Most people do quit.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    Search for "How Starbucks treats their workers" and see why large companies get attacked too. If you search for your favorite local coffee shop, you won't see such complaints. But go to /r/starbucks and you'll sometimes hear that a lot of small shops are worse, for various reasons. Large companies attract certain classes of criticism not by being worse, but by being more visible. Unfortunately, this actively masks some of the wrongs that they actually do.
akira2501 3y ago
There's the old line about "temporarily embarrassed millionaires." I feel like Hacker News types see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed monopolists."
- Robotbeat 3y ago
  I mean… that’s basically the business case behind many tech companies, right? Build a moat.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  HN is run by a VC firm, and the explicit goal of the companies they fund is to grow very big very quickly. While HN's audience extends beyond that the VCs do leave behind a huge imprint.
robertlagrant 3y ago
Some people will just defend anyone or anything regardless of tribalism. Just based on what they think is ethical and/or factual.
takinola 3y ago
Perhaps they have a different opinion than you do on the issue? I don't have a POV on this particular case but it seems reasonable to assume that there are other (reasonable) people that have different values and judgements than you do. Just because these companies and CEOs have a lot of resources should not automatically kick in the "David v Goliath" instinct that most people have
- jstarfish 3y ago
  > Just because these companies and CEOs have a lot of resources should not automatically kick in the "David v Goliath" instinct that most people have David vs. Goliath was a story about overcoming subjugation and oppression. A lot of people have been very much put-upon by the metaphorical Goliath here in a number of ways. There are piss bottles available as evidence.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    I'm amazed at how much the idea of pissing into a bottle offended the sensibilities of journalists. Given a choice between pissing in bottles or having the time saved as a longer lunch break, I'd guess most would chose the lunch break. The never ending screw turning cost optimization is the problem, but using that example lands really flat.
    - burkaman 3y ago
      Why would anybody need to make that choice?
      - mindslight 3y ago
        Why do people have to make choices of how to spend their time? Because there is a finite amount of time in any given period, and most activities are mutually exclusive.
        burkaman 3y ago
browningstreet 3y ago
You're allowed to win. You're not allowed to complain. I think that's a very American thing right now... politically too. But downstream, there are lots of issues that arise if one can't expect some kind of balance in check-n-balances.
Andrex 3y ago
The argument always boils down to "well it's allowed / that's just how you do things" and when the companies get told "No, that's actually not allowed and not how you should do things" the argument switches to "the FTC has been weaponized by The Other Side, even if they're doing pro-consumer things we shouldn't trust them because Big Govt." Meanwhile, we have over 100 years over antitrust history and precedent pointing the other way. Sometimes Big Govt does need to step in and set the market right, because raw unfettered capitalism lacking regulation will always destroy itself. (For the record, and to preempt some strawmen, I don't think raw, unfettered socialism is The Way either.)
megaman821 3y ago
Is this supposed to be an argument or something? Malign people with large companies, and then tell them their opinions don't matter. Tribal thinking is the worst. You added nothing of value to the conversation.
_ea1k 3y ago
I guess I do that to some degree. Amazon is doing some bad things, but I have a difficult time seeing that without also seeing the good impacts that they've had. I remember online retail before Amazon dominance. Return policies and return shipping was a real mess. Amazon actually greatly improved the customer service experience. It also changed some markets in ways that were undoubtedly pro-consumer. It also has had a lot of negative impacts, as their model (including the free shipping concept) has made it practically impossible for small independent stores to compete in online sales. Put another way, very few things are all bad or all good. A lot of internet commentary wants to magically keep the good and vaporize the bad, but it just doesn't work that way.

by zht 3y ago

vasilipupkin 3y ago

and others spend a lot of time attacking large companies simply because they are large. In this case, AMZN. AMZN is like the cheapest place to buy things online. But it's not the only place. So, why is FTC going after them?

sitzkrieg 3y ago
well, there is an entire article highlighting each of their reasons if you are so inclined
- vasilipupkin 3y ago
  yeah, I am saying these reasons don't seem to make sense, since AMZN is not a monopoly because other online sellers exist and physical stores exist
lancesells 3y ago
> others spend a lot of time attacking large companies simply because they are large This isn't the FTC's complaint but search "How Amazon treats their workers" and see why large companies get attacked. Typically the only way you're going to become this large is by abusing people in some sort of way. Amazon abuses their workers, their sellers, etc. Meta abuses their users. Google abuses their users. Uber abuses their drivers. I would love to see 20 Amazons where half have a decent quality of life for workers compared to 1 Amazon where it's just awful for everyone except maybe consumers (debatable), executives, and tech workers.
- vasilipupkin 3y ago
  absurd. Nobody is forcing anyone to work for AMZN or Google or Uber. People would simply quit if these companies were actually abusing them
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    Yes they are forced to work. If you don't have a job you starve, that's how our economy works. That's a very soft form of force (specifically, a sin of omission), but it is still force. Likewise, quitting your job is extremely disruptive and carries risk of bankruptcy if you can't get on to another employer in time. It's not simply a matter of "switch to the best offer available".
    - vasilipupkin 3y ago
      I was alive before Uber, AMZN existed and nobody starved, people just worked elsewhere, so this assertion is just not true. People have to work, but they don't have to work for AMZN, they didn't before it existed. Sure, quitting is disruptive, but people are not actually forced to work for any company, come on.
      - lancesells 3y ago
        You don't think the large companies that existed before Amazon abused those workers? Wal-Mart never did anything wrong to their workers? It's a repeating playbook.
  - olyjohn 3y ago
    Have you seen Uber's turnover rate? Most people do quit.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  Search for "How Starbucks treats their workers" and see why large companies get attacked too. If you search for your favorite local coffee shop, you won't see such complaints. But go to /r/starbucks and you'll sometimes hear that a lot of small shops are worse, for various reasons. Large companies attract certain classes of criticism not by being worse, but by being more visible. Unfortunately, this actively masks some of the wrongs that they actually do.

akira2501 3y ago

There's the old line about "temporarily embarrassed millionaires." I feel like Hacker News types see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed monopolists."

Robotbeat 3y ago
I mean… that’s basically the business case behind many tech companies, right? Build a moat.
kmeisthax 3y ago
HN is run by a VC firm, and the explicit goal of the companies they fund is to grow very big very quickly. While HN's audience extends beyond that the VCs do leave behind a huge imprint.

robertlagrant 3y ago

Some people will just defend anyone or anything regardless of tribalism. Just based on what they think is ethical and/or factual.

takinola 3y ago

Perhaps they have a different opinion than you do on the issue? I don't have a POV on this particular case but it seems reasonable to assume that there are other (reasonable) people that have different values and judgements than you do. Just because these companies and CEOs have a lot of resources should not automatically kick in the "David v Goliath" instinct that most people have

jstarfish 3y ago
> Just because these companies and CEOs have a lot of resources should not automatically kick in the "David v Goliath" instinct that most people have David vs. Goliath was a story about overcoming subjugation and oppression. A lot of people have been very much put-upon by the metaphorical Goliath here in a number of ways. There are piss bottles available as evidence.
- mindslight 3y ago
  I'm amazed at how much the idea of pissing into a bottle offended the sensibilities of journalists. Given a choice between pissing in bottles or having the time saved as a longer lunch break, I'd guess most would chose the lunch break. The never ending screw turning cost optimization is the problem, but using that example lands really flat.
  - burkaman 3y ago
    Why would anybody need to make that choice?
    - mindslight 3y ago
      Why do people have to make choices of how to spend their time? Because there is a finite amount of time in any given period, and most activities are mutually exclusive.
      - burkaman 3y ago

browningstreet 3y ago

You're allowed to win. You're not allowed to complain. I think that's a very American thing right now... politically too. But downstream, there are lots of issues that arise if one can't expect some kind of balance in check-n-balances.

Andrex 3y ago

The argument always boils down to "well it's allowed / that's just how you do things" and when the companies get told "No, that's actually not allowed and not how you should do things" the argument switches to "the FTC has been weaponized by The Other Side, even if they're doing pro-consumer things we shouldn't trust them because Big Govt." Meanwhile, we have over 100 years over antitrust history and precedent pointing the other way. Sometimes Big Govt does need to step in and set the market right, because raw unfettered capitalism lacking regulation will always destroy itself. (For the record, and to preempt some strawmen, I don't think raw, unfettered socialism is The Way either.)

megaman821 3y ago

Is this supposed to be an argument or something? Malign people with large companies, and then tell them their opinions don't matter. Tribal thinking is the worst. You added nothing of value to the conversation.

_ea1k 3y ago

I guess I do that to some degree. Amazon is doing some bad things, but I have a difficult time seeing that without also seeing the good impacts that they've had. I remember online retail before Amazon dominance. Return policies and return shipping was a real mess. Amazon actually greatly improved the customer service experience. It also changed some markets in ways that were undoubtedly pro-consumer. It also has had a lot of negative impacts, as their model (including the free shipping concept) has made it practically impossible for small independent stores to compete in online sales. Put another way, very few things are all bad or all good. A lot of internet commentary wants to magically keep the good and vaporize the bad, but it just doesn't work that way.