3 ms·

I just prefer personal accountability because it seems a fair and just way to organize things. These things don't happen as a force of nature: it's someone (or

by arp242 3y ago

I just prefer personal accountability because it seems a fair and just way to organize things. These things don't happen as a force of nature: it's someone (or a bunch of people) making a decision, and then someone (or several people) implementing it. If I scam someone in my brick and mortar store with fake products I will be held personally responsible as the owner, and rightfully so. And if other people knowingly participate in the scam they will be held responsible too. Never mind all the other stuff like lying reviews, dangerous products, etc. So why aren't we holding Jeff Bezos and the rest of Amazon leadership's team similarly accountable? They're not innocent bystanders here. Somehow there's this idea that personal accountability just doesn't apply except in cases of VERY blatant outright fraud (Enron, VW Diesel, Theranos), and even then it's haphazard and often weak (no one went to prison for e.g. Deepwater Horizon). IMO it's one of the worst ideas in the history of bad ideas. The bigger the company (and thus stakes, and negative effects) the lower the accountability is. The Devil's Dictionary from 1906 already observed this with: "CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility."

Chris2048 3y ago
But it'll likely conflict directly with personal freedoms. Plus what's the logic behind the most draconian of implementations? - If we can hold Bezos to account, why not every AMAZON shareholder?
- arp242 3y ago
  I don't think it's draconian at all, or conflicting with personal freedoms. How would it conflict? Shareholders aren't making these decisions. But if shareholders voted for something they knew was illegal or could have known was illegal, then yes, maybe they should be held to account too.
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    > Shareholders aren't making these decisions What are "these decisions"? I assumed you are talking about punishing people like Bezos for the activities of Amazon, even without proof he had direct knowledge/involvement of them, purely based on his position as a c-suite figurehead?
    - arp242 3y ago
      I don't care who has direct involvement or knowledge; you're accountable for what you operate and if you operate something with rampant scams then you're accountable for that. They're operating a platform that enables criminal activity and they benefit from it. They've been told this (and even without it, they can and should have known). And then they elected to not do all that much about it. "Don't do anything" is just as much of a decision as "do something" is. Last time I looked at this they were literally recommending scams with "Amazon's Choice"[1]. That one is now gone, but you just need to "sort by price" (a reasonable thing to do) to find tons of scams.[2] None of this is new information. This has been going on >10 years. There's tons of stories about this sort of thing. "Yeah, there's tons of scams on our site, and yeah, we're making a profit off those scams, but what can we do?" just doesn't fly. Rampant illegal activity you're making a profit on but somehow no one is accountable? Screw that. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34588734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34588734 [2]: https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=2tb+usb+ssd&i=computers&s=price-asc-rank&crid=ZK88MJF39LX4&qid=1704758579&sprefix=2tb+usb+sdd%2Ccomputers%2C60&ref=sr_st_price-asc-rank&ds=v1%3AydshH1WntNhEg95qrsILSs9V8ZEck4yZ0%2FfS6%2BD7h9E https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=2tb+usb+ssd&i=computers&s=price...

by arp242 3y ago

Chris2048 3y ago

But it'll likely conflict directly with personal freedoms. Plus what's the logic behind the most draconian of implementations? - If we can hold Bezos to account, why not every AMAZON shareholder?

arp242 3y ago
I don't think it's draconian at all, or conflicting with personal freedoms. How would it conflict? Shareholders aren't making these decisions. But if shareholders voted for something they knew was illegal or could have known was illegal, then yes, maybe they should be held to account too.
- Chris2048 3y ago
  > Shareholders aren't making these decisions What are "these decisions"? I assumed you are talking about punishing people like Bezos for the activities of Amazon, even without proof he had direct knowledge/involvement of them, purely based on his position as a c-suite figurehead?
  - arp242 3y ago
    I don't care who has direct involvement or knowledge; you're accountable for what you operate and if you operate something with rampant scams then you're accountable for that. They're operating a platform that enables criminal activity and they benefit from it. They've been told this (and even without it, they can and should have known). And then they elected to not do all that much about it. "Don't do anything" is just as much of a decision as "do something" is. Last time I looked at this they were literally recommending scams with "Amazon's Choice"[1]. That one is now gone, but you just need to "sort by price" (a reasonable thing to do) to find tons of scams.[2] None of this is new information. This has been going on >10 years. There's tons of stories about this sort of thing. "Yeah, there's tons of scams on our site, and yeah, we're making a profit off those scams, but what can we do?" just doesn't fly. Rampant illegal activity you're making a profit on but somehow no one is accountable? Screw that. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34588734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34588734 [2]: https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=2tb+usb+ssd&i=computers&s=price-asc-rank&crid=ZK88MJF39LX4&qid=1704758579&sprefix=2tb+usb+sdd%2Ccomputers%2C60&ref=sr_st_price-asc-rank&ds=v1%3AydshH1WntNhEg95qrsILSs9V8ZEck4yZ0%2FfS6%2BD7h9E https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=2tb+usb+ssd&i=computers&s=price...