5 ms·

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 onli

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.

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.