4 ms·

It would hurt Bezos even more if the US Govt found a way to cancel the massive use of AWS cloud services because his media arm endorsed the non-winning candidat

It would hurt Bezos even more if the US Govt found a way to cancel the massive use of AWS cloud services because his media arm endorsed the non-winning candidate. Given the business AWS does with the US govt, the size of his remaining stake, I can't make a good case for endorsing a candidate either. Microsoft is always lurking around ready to push their Azure solution so not like AWS can sit back and rest easy here.

freejazz 2y ago
Are people to find this comforting?
- SavageBeast 2y ago
  It's a free country and a guy made a decision regarding what he was willing to have HIS company say publicly. It was his call to make. His company. Privately funded. He's got the right to run it any way he sees fit. You have the right to cancel subscriptions and decline to read it. Advertisers have the right to flee. Everyone has a choice. Thats how this whole America thing works. Besides, who was making their decision based on the Washington Post's editorial board endorsement anyhow?
  - freejazz 2y ago
    You could have just said "no." Also, I don't think it's a traditional feature of America to have highly concentrated media ownership.
  - ajross 2y ago
    The linked article is literally about people being upset about that and exercising exactly the same freedom to cancel their subscriptions, though. In which direction are you arguing?
RussBrown00 2y ago
Are you suggesting the govt should change who they did business with because one of their other businesses didn't politically support a certain candidate for President?
- mooreds 2y ago
  I think he is suggesting that government might do so.
  - Ashwin1212 2y ago
    [dead]
- ZekeSulastin 2y ago
  I don’t think they’re suggesting that Trump should, but that there’s a good chance that he would.
  - NickC25 2y ago
    It's not a matter of if Trump would. He absolutely will. Donald Trump has an ego the size of the universe, and if someone slights him in any way, he will be out for blood.
- chucke1992 2y ago
  They are basically implying that the government should support businesses that fall in line with the government. Which is a strange thing to support though, but it often happens anyway.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Or to put a finer point on it: Suggesting that some President would abuse the powers of the office, using the government as a tool to harm others out of corrupt personal revenge. The prisoner's dilemma here is that each group that surrenders to the potential threat makes it more likely the bad situation will actually come to pass.
Sabinus 2y ago
>It would hurt Bezos even more if the US Govt found a way to cancel the massive use of AWS cloud services because his media arm endorsed the non-winning candidate It didn't even take that much illegal retaliation and abuse of power by Trump to incentivise capitalists to please him.
NickC25 2y ago
>Given the business AWS does with the US govt, the size of his remaining stake, I can't make a good case for endorsing a candidate either. Honestly. I am not a government contractor, but I do own a small business - and I stay the fuck out of politics. There is nothing to be gained from making any political overtures of any type. I have my own political opinions, but I don't broadcast them - I simply vote. And my opinions are not those of my company or brand - because my brand/company has no political values - it has a product. Jeff literally has tens of billions of dollars on the line, both his own and his investors' money. Preventing his media arm, which is supposedly independent, from making a political statement is just absolutely dumb, because this draws MORE attention on him and Amazon than if he just did nothing. If Harris wins, I wouldn't put it past her to put Lina Kahn on the case of breaking up Amazon. Dumb move by Jeff, and probably a dereliction of duty as a founder who has taken public money.
- lukan 2y ago
  "Dumb move by Jeff, and probably a dereliction of duty as a founder who has taken public money." Unless Trump wins and Bezos benefits from the secret deals that were just made behind the curtain.
ajross 2y ago
That logic would have made sense in April, or in 2022, or even earlier. Certainly not within two weeks of an election. Very clearly Bezos interceded on behalf of one specific candidate here, not out of general principle.

freejazz 2y ago

Are people to find this comforting?

SavageBeast 2y ago
It's a free country and a guy made a decision regarding what he was willing to have HIS company say publicly. It was his call to make. His company. Privately funded. He's got the right to run it any way he sees fit. You have the right to cancel subscriptions and decline to read it. Advertisers have the right to flee. Everyone has a choice. Thats how this whole America thing works. Besides, who was making their decision based on the Washington Post's editorial board endorsement anyhow?
- freejazz 2y ago
  You could have just said "no." Also, I don't think it's a traditional feature of America to have highly concentrated media ownership.
- ajross 2y ago
  The linked article is literally about people being upset about that and exercising exactly the same freedom to cancel their subscriptions, though. In which direction are you arguing?

RussBrown00 2y ago

Are you suggesting the govt should change who they did business with because one of their other businesses didn't politically support a certain candidate for President?

mooreds 2y ago
I think he is suggesting that government might do so.
- Ashwin1212 2y ago
  [dead]
ZekeSulastin 2y ago
I don’t think they’re suggesting that Trump should, but that there’s a good chance that he would.
- NickC25 2y ago
  It's not a matter of if Trump would. He absolutely will. Donald Trump has an ego the size of the universe, and if someone slights him in any way, he will be out for blood.
chucke1992 2y ago
They are basically implying that the government should support businesses that fall in line with the government. Which is a strange thing to support though, but it often happens anyway.
Terr_ 2y ago
Or to put a finer point on it: Suggesting that some President would abuse the powers of the office, using the government as a tool to harm others out of corrupt personal revenge. The prisoner's dilemma here is that each group that surrenders to the potential threat makes it more likely the bad situation will actually come to pass.

Sabinus 2y ago

>It would hurt Bezos even more if the US Govt found a way to cancel the massive use of AWS cloud services because his media arm endorsed the non-winning candidate It didn't even take that much illegal retaliation and abuse of power by Trump to incentivise capitalists to please him.

NickC25 2y ago

>Given the business AWS does with the US govt, the size of his remaining stake, I can't make a good case for endorsing a candidate either. Honestly. I am not a government contractor, but I do own a small business - and I stay the fuck out of politics. There is nothing to be gained from making any political overtures of any type. I have my own political opinions, but I don't broadcast them - I simply vote. And my opinions are not those of my company or brand - because my brand/company has no political values - it has a product. Jeff literally has tens of billions of dollars on the line, both his own and his investors' money. Preventing his media arm, which is supposedly independent, from making a political statement is just absolutely dumb, because this draws MORE attention on him and Amazon than if he just did nothing. If Harris wins, I wouldn't put it past her to put Lina Kahn on the case of breaking up Amazon. Dumb move by Jeff, and probably a dereliction of duty as a founder who has taken public money.

lukan 2y ago
"Dumb move by Jeff, and probably a dereliction of duty as a founder who has taken public money." Unless Trump wins and Bezos benefits from the secret deals that were just made behind the curtain.

ajross 2y ago

That logic would have made sense in April, or in 2022, or even earlier. Certainly not within two weeks of an election. Very clearly Bezos interceded on behalf of one specific candidate here, not out of general principle.