4 ms·
> 2. the DOJ is presumably involved because this looks like criminal kickbacks > I would guess the DOJ approached Amazon first No, this is clear retaliation a
by lylejantzi3rd 2y ago
> 2. the DOJ is presumably involved because this looks like criminal kickbacks
> I would guess the DOJ approached Amazon first
No, this is clear retaliation against a competitor. Amazon has contacts at the DOJ (and other government agencies). I bet it was the other way around. Aggressive stupidity in the face of the facts is easier to understand when you realize it's either a favor or a bribe.
- jsnell 2y agoWho is the competitor you have in mind, and what business do you think they are in?
- lylejantzi3rd 2y agoMaybe you should go read the twitter thread and relevant news articles, then come back and ask a better question.
- jsnell 2y agoI have. As far as I can tell, there was no entity competing with Amazon here. The main other corporate entity involved was running a front-running scheme on real-estate transactions. Obviously you couldn't be in good faith talking of the company front-running land purchases and reselling the same land a day later for 20% profit as a "competitor" of Amazon. So, again: who is the competitor you have in mind, and what business do you think they're in?
- lylejantzi3rd 2y agoMaybe you need to look up the word "competitor" in the dictionary. > Obviously you couldn't be Don't do this. It's a clear sign you're not interested in a good faith discussion.