3 ms·
> It's just also facially incorrect - Amazon does hire warehouse workers. Facebook does not hire enough content monitors. This is the whole point. Amazon had t
by jjani 1y ago
> It's just also facially incorrect - Amazon does hire warehouse workers. Facebook does not hire enough content monitors.
This is the whole point. Amazon had to hire hundreds of thousands of warehouse workers to scale. They have 1.5 million employees. Facebook is capable of doing the same. The idea that they "can't scale" if they have to stop unloading their negative externalities is absurd. Amazon scaled, while hiring 1.5 million employees. Meta can scale and do the same.
- freejazz 1y agoAmazon actually delivers things. Facebook still has a pedo problem, so no, I don't think you're right and it's certainly not even a good example to make your point with anyway as there is no similarity at all. It's pretty clear facebook's business model doesn't work when you have to actually sift through everything they spread. Amazon has nothing to do with it.
- jjani 1y agoFacebook still has a pedo problem because they still haven't hired 1 million employees to deal with it. Amazon would still have a logistics problem if they hadn't hired 1 million employees to move boxes around.
- freejazz 1y agoThat doesn't support the conclusion that facebook could, stop beating your dead horse.
- jjani 1y agoThe idea that this is literally an unsolvable problem is just absurd. If every Amazon warehouse worker instead became a Facebook pedo monitor making a >95% decrease happen would be pretty trivial.