5 ms·

Amazon removed statements advocating for LGBTQ rights and racial equity

64 points by belter 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
CommanderData 2y ago
[flagged]
add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
This sounds like a kind of progress. Companies today don't explicitly affirm school desegregation or interracial marriage. That's because they're settled and social progress issues like these inevitably win in the long run. Progress can't be stopped but there is a ceiling on how much progress that can be made in one era, it takes a few more generations of people who can't accept new ideas to die out. Amazon couldn't rush history if they wanted to.
- jsheard 2y ago
  That perspective would be more reassuring if this didn't coincide with a new president promising to roll back LGBT rights, and Bezos being a guest of honor at his inauguration.
  - adamredwoods 2y ago
    Bezos is chairman, but not CEO. Does he still have that much influence within the company?
- _uxvx 2y ago
  We have heard this before - in Soviet Union. The progress and overcoming capitalism was inevitable. It ended up well
  - im3w1l 2y ago
    AI will end capitalism in its current form this century. Though what comes after is still an open question.
    - vtashkov 2y ago
      Sure, the same way printing press, electrification, education and what not did.
      - im3w1l 2y ago
        The printing press predates capitalism.
        vtashkov 2y ago
        But its usage to “enlighten the masses” - does not.
        im3w1l 2y ago
        I think you are misunderstanding my reasoning then. I'm not saying AI will enlighten the masses or anything. The current system is based on capitalists employing workers. But with AI there will not be a need to employ workers. Goods and services can be provided without human labor. From the worker's perspective, currently they perform a job and get money they buy the things they need. The question is then, if the job disappears how will they aquire the things they need? Basic income? Charity? We shall see.
        _uxvx 2y ago
        Capitalism is “capitalists employing workers” only in Marxist doctrine. Capitalism is free market. And that will not disappear because AI displaces workers.
        1659447091 2y ago
        From the capitalists perspective if they forgo workers then there is no need for their goods and services. It's odd to me that the current thought is that this idea is lost on them because they want nothing more than to get rid of workers? They want more productivity from their workers for the same or slightly less cost, which they are hoping AI can squeeze out of them. Eliminate too many workers and you have to pay the ones left more as they are now specialist, and productivity gains from AI only brings production back to when they had more workers without AI and paying less for them bringing it to about even. They gain by keeping around the same amount of workers (maybe a few less--that amount to a rounding error, but not the doom being predicted), at their current job title paying the same scraps and using AI to get more productivity out of them. And in which workers will now turn around and spend their check buying said goods at a higher cost than they were paid to make them. Unless UBI becomes a thing, capitalists know they need workers who will buy their goods and services.
- Salgat 2y ago
  I would agree if this happened organically and not all in lockstep with an excutive order from the government demanding to shut down all federal diversity initiatives.
- krapp 2y ago
  Progress wasn't made on interracial marriage and desegregation because black people waited patiently for the natural course of societal evolution to take place. Progress had to be forced upon society against its will, sometimes with guns. And even today there are plenty of people who would resegregate society and outlaw interracial marriage if it were legal. Racial realism and white supremacist ideology are becoming normalized in American politics. Even on HN you'll find people stating matter of factly that people black people have a higher genetic predisposition for criminality and lower IQs, and that slavery and colonization were the best thing to ever happen to them. This shit is not settled. I disagree that "there is a ceiling on how much progress that can be made in one era" and I vehemently disagree with the implication that the government should determine how much progress is allowed.
  - etblg 2y ago
    "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." from MLK Jr. of course, while he was locked up in a jail in Birmingham for protesting.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      It is revisionist history to think that civil rights were brought about by the barrel of a gun, and that there are no limits on the methods of direct action. MLK Jr. is not saying there are no reasonable limits on methods of direct action. He is not saying that every goal is justified by any means.
      - 2y ago
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  > Progress can't be stopped but there is a ceiling on how much progress that can be made in one era There's a particularly evocative line this reminds me of in Mississippi, Goddamn. > Don't tell me, I tell you > Me and my people just about due > I've been there so I know > They keep on saying "Go slow"
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Lot's of 'Obeying in advance' going on right now. https://youtu.be/9tocssf3w80?si=ltWWWbZVzHjeBa7i&t=159 https://youtu.be/9tocssf3w80?si=ltWWWbZVzHjeBa7i&t=159
mfuzzey 2y ago
Companies obeying new laws is one thing, and of course they don't really have much choice about that if they want to stay in business. But companies changing stuff just to cozy up to a new president without there being a law forcing them is quite another thing. I think this sets a dangerous precedent, regardless of the stuff being changed.
- reaperducer 2y ago
  The executive order instructs the federal government to look at private sector D.E.I. initiatives: Each federal agency, it says, will identify “up to nine potential civil compliance investigations” that could include publicly traded corporations, nonprofits and large foundations, among others. “That discrete number is a way of striking fear into organizations’ hearts,” said Kenji Yoshino, a constitutional lawyer at N.Y.U. who advises some Fortune 500 companies on D.E.I. “They just don’t want to be one of those nine. Until those nine are announced, it’s going to cause others to be risk-averse.” https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/business/trump-dei-corporate-reaction.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/business/trump-dei-corpor...
  - adam_arthur 2y ago
    There's an easy legal argument to make that discrimination in hiring, or otherwise, on the basis of race is illegal. So I'm not surprised that companies with policies promoting specific subgroups are worried about legal consequences. e.g. from the article [Amazon] "The deletion of previous statements pledging to commit to “equity for Black people”"
    - jfengel 2y ago
      Instead, those companies are going to promote specific subgroups and not admit it. After all, you can always claim that it's a coincidence that the only qualified people were straight white men. It's only discrimination if you write it down.
      - adam_arthur 2y ago
jsiepkes 2y ago
Whether you think this a bad thing or a good thing it certainly proves most large companies stand for little more than shareholder value. If it's advantageous to raise a LGBTQ+ flag they'll do it, if it's advantageous to burn one they'll do that as well.
- wruza 2y ago
  I guess the proper way for the movements is to not make it advantageous then. Because it’s a well-known phenomenon and forcing a change this way never worked, despite all the make believe.
- krapp 2y ago
  The only people who thought companies were sincere in their support for LGBTQ rights or black rights or anything else were right wingers who thought it meant every corporation was run by "woke" Marxists. Everyone else knew it was a cynical marketing ploy at best, but there would still be little if any visibility for these groups at all if they didn't represent a market segment that could be exploited by capitalism. It was better than nothing.
  - dkkergoog 2y ago
    [dead]
  - hydrogen7800 2y ago
    I thought it was at least a good sign that /that/ was the "cynical marketing ploy" they felt was what people wanted to see, and which had the broadest appeal. Maybe it actually reflected, or at attempted to pander to, a broad cultural ideal. Now it's not.
    - binary132 2y ago
      I think it’s more that they understand which side their bread is buttered on and are sucking up to the new admin. It isn’t like the political demographics of the United States magically changed on Inauguration Day.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Amazon may have done so as a gesture to avoid antitrust scrutiny from the new administration, but I know from friends there that they are still subject to a lot of pressure to meet DEI targets behind closed doors. Executives are given target numbers based on race and gender for hiring and promotion that determine their own performance. It’s illegal but that’s why they do all this only verbally, to avoid litigation.
- neilv 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships
archagon 2y ago
I wish there was a single leader in big tech who had the backbone to say "actually, go fuck yourself" to the fascist Trump administration. Crickets. We have no leadership or morality in our industry anymore — only sick profiteering.
- an_guy 2y ago
  "Leaders" of industry no longer have to adhere to arbitrary racial/gender compliance just because someone decided there needs to be "x" number of "y" people working there. I would question morality of person supporting such policies.

64 points by belter 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

CommanderData 2y ago

[flagged]

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago

This sounds like a kind of progress. Companies today don't explicitly affirm school desegregation or interracial marriage. That's because they're settled and social progress issues like these inevitably win in the long run. Progress can't be stopped but there is a ceiling on how much progress that can be made in one era, it takes a few more generations of people who can't accept new ideas to die out. Amazon couldn't rush history if they wanted to.

jsheard 2y ago
That perspective would be more reassuring if this didn't coincide with a new president promising to roll back LGBT rights, and Bezos being a guest of honor at his inauguration.
- adamredwoods 2y ago
  Bezos is chairman, but not CEO. Does he still have that much influence within the company?
_uxvx 2y ago
We have heard this before - in Soviet Union. The progress and overcoming capitalism was inevitable. It ended up well
- im3w1l 2y ago
  AI will end capitalism in its current form this century. Though what comes after is still an open question.
  - vtashkov 2y ago
    Sure, the same way printing press, electrification, education and what not did.
    - im3w1l 2y ago
      The printing press predates capitalism.
      - vtashkov 2y ago
        But its usage to “enlighten the masses” - does not.
        im3w1l 2y ago
        I think you are misunderstanding my reasoning then. I'm not saying AI will enlighten the masses or anything. The current system is based on capitalists employing workers. But with AI there will not be a need to employ workers. Goods and services can be provided without human labor. From the worker's perspective, currently they perform a job and get money they buy the things they need. The question is then, if the job disappears how will they aquire the things they need? Basic income? Charity? We shall see.
        _uxvx 2y ago
        Capitalism is “capitalists employing workers” only in Marxist doctrine. Capitalism is free market. And that will not disappear because AI displaces workers.
        1659447091 2y ago
        From the capitalists perspective if they forgo workers then there is no need for their goods and services. It's odd to me that the current thought is that this idea is lost on them because they want nothing more than to get rid of workers? They want more productivity from their workers for the same or slightly less cost, which they are hoping AI can squeeze out of them. Eliminate too many workers and you have to pay the ones left more as they are now specialist, and productivity gains from AI only brings production back to when they had more workers without AI and paying less for them bringing it to about even. They gain by keeping around the same amount of workers (maybe a few less--that amount to a rounding error, but not the doom being predicted), at their current job title paying the same scraps and using AI to get more productivity out of them. And in which workers will now turn around and spend their check buying said goods at a higher cost than they were paid to make them. Unless UBI becomes a thing, capitalists know they need workers who will buy their goods and services.
Salgat 2y ago
I would agree if this happened organically and not all in lockstep with an excutive order from the government demanding to shut down all federal diversity initiatives.
krapp 2y ago
Progress wasn't made on interracial marriage and desegregation because black people waited patiently for the natural course of societal evolution to take place. Progress had to be forced upon society against its will, sometimes with guns. And even today there are plenty of people who would resegregate society and outlaw interracial marriage if it were legal. Racial realism and white supremacist ideology are becoming normalized in American politics. Even on HN you'll find people stating matter of factly that people black people have a higher genetic predisposition for criminality and lower IQs, and that slavery and colonization were the best thing to ever happen to them. This shit is not settled. I disagree that "there is a ceiling on how much progress that can be made in one era" and I vehemently disagree with the implication that the government should determine how much progress is allowed.
- etblg 2y ago
  "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." from MLK Jr. of course, while he was locked up in a jail in Birmingham for protesting.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    It is revisionist history to think that civil rights were brought about by the barrel of a gun, and that there are no limits on the methods of direct action. MLK Jr. is not saying there are no reasonable limits on methods of direct action. He is not saying that every goal is justified by any means.
    - 2y ago
UncleMeat 2y ago
> Progress can't be stopped but there is a ceiling on how much progress that can be made in one era There's a particularly evocative line this reminds me of in Mississippi, Goddamn. > Don't tell me, I tell you > Me and my people just about due > I've been there so I know > They keep on saying "Go slow"

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

Lot's of 'Obeying in advance' going on right now. https://youtu.be/9tocssf3w80?si=ltWWWbZVzHjeBa7i&t=159 https://youtu.be/9tocssf3w80?si=ltWWWbZVzHjeBa7i&t=159

mfuzzey 2y ago

Companies obeying new laws is one thing, and of course they don't really have much choice about that if they want to stay in business. But companies changing stuff just to cozy up to a new president without there being a law forcing them is quite another thing. I think this sets a dangerous precedent, regardless of the stuff being changed.

reaperducer 2y ago
The executive order instructs the federal government to look at private sector D.E.I. initiatives: Each federal agency, it says, will identify “up to nine potential civil compliance investigations” that could include publicly traded corporations, nonprofits and large foundations, among others. “That discrete number is a way of striking fear into organizations’ hearts,” said Kenji Yoshino, a constitutional lawyer at N.Y.U. who advises some Fortune 500 companies on D.E.I. “They just don’t want to be one of those nine. Until those nine are announced, it’s going to cause others to be risk-averse.” https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/business/trump-dei-corporate-reaction.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/business/trump-dei-corpor...
- adam_arthur 2y ago
  There's an easy legal argument to make that discrimination in hiring, or otherwise, on the basis of race is illegal. So I'm not surprised that companies with policies promoting specific subgroups are worried about legal consequences. e.g. from the article [Amazon] "The deletion of previous statements pledging to commit to “equity for Black people”"
  - jfengel 2y ago
    Instead, those companies are going to promote specific subgroups and not admit it. After all, you can always claim that it's a coincidence that the only qualified people were straight white men. It's only discrimination if you write it down.
    - adam_arthur 2y ago

jsiepkes 2y ago

Whether you think this a bad thing or a good thing it certainly proves most large companies stand for little more than shareholder value. If it's advantageous to raise a LGBTQ+ flag they'll do it, if it's advantageous to burn one they'll do that as well.

wruza 2y ago
I guess the proper way for the movements is to not make it advantageous then. Because it’s a well-known phenomenon and forcing a change this way never worked, despite all the make believe.
krapp 2y ago
The only people who thought companies were sincere in their support for LGBTQ rights or black rights or anything else were right wingers who thought it meant every corporation was run by "woke" Marxists. Everyone else knew it was a cynical marketing ploy at best, but there would still be little if any visibility for these groups at all if they didn't represent a market segment that could be exploited by capitalism. It was better than nothing.
- dkkergoog 2y ago
  [dead]
- hydrogen7800 2y ago
  I thought it was at least a good sign that /that/ was the "cynical marketing ploy" they felt was what people wanted to see, and which had the broadest appeal. Maybe it actually reflected, or at attempted to pander to, a broad cultural ideal. Now it's not.
  - binary132 2y ago
    I think it’s more that they understand which side their bread is buttered on and are sucking up to the new admin. It isn’t like the political demographics of the United States magically changed on Inauguration Day.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Amazon may have done so as a gesture to avoid antitrust scrutiny from the new administration, but I know from friends there that they are still subject to a lot of pressure to meet DEI targets behind closed doors. Executives are given target numbers based on race and gender for hiring and promotion that determine their own performance. It’s illegal but that’s why they do all this only verbally, to avoid litigation.

neilv 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships

archagon 2y ago

I wish there was a single leader in big tech who had the backbone to say "actually, go fuck yourself" to the fascist Trump administration. Crickets. We have no leadership or morality in our industry anymore — only sick profiteering.

an_guy 2y ago
"Leaders" of industry no longer have to adhere to arbitrary racial/gender compliance just because someone decided there needs to be "x" number of "y" people working there. I would question morality of person supporting such policies.