Our Positions(aboutamazon.com)
aboutamazon.com
Our Positions
https://www.aboutamazon.com/our-company/our-positions
80 comments
> A cynical reading
...
> The rights of LGBTQ+ people must be protected > > (We want to continue to employ LGBTQ+ people)
Huh? The lack of some rights for LGB+ people under current law does not prevent Amazon from employing them. In fact, that lack of rights probably actually makes it easier for Amazon to employ them by easily extending benefits beyond what are required. Once those rights are legally granted, all employers will have to extend them, reducing Amazon's advantage.
> Governments should work quickly to put in place a regulatory framework for facial recognition technology > > (We recognize that someone should do something about this, but it's not going to be us)
They are doing something about it. It takes government to establish regulatory frameworks, so they are lobbying for that.
> Counterfeiters should receive stronger penalties under federal law > > (Nobody counterfeits Kindles or other Amazon brands on Amazon, but somehow the problem is impossible for us to solve for anyone else. Or we'd make less money, which is kind of the same thing when you think about it)
No one counterfeits Kindles on Amazon because no one but Amazon is allowed to sell Kindles on Amazon. The lack of Kindle counterfeits there gives no useful information about the difficulty of keeping counterfeits out of markets that allow multiple sellers for a given product.
...
> The rights of LGBTQ+ people must be protected > > (We want to continue to employ LGBTQ+ people)
Huh? The lack of some rights for LGB+ people under current law does not prevent Amazon from employing them. In fact, that lack of rights probably actually makes it easier for Amazon to employ them by easily extending benefits beyond what are required. Once those rights are legally granted, all employers will have to extend them, reducing Amazon's advantage.
> Governments should work quickly to put in place a regulatory framework for facial recognition technology > > (We recognize that someone should do something about this, but it's not going to be us)
They are doing something about it. It takes government to establish regulatory frameworks, so they are lobbying for that.
> Counterfeiters should receive stronger penalties under federal law > > (Nobody counterfeits Kindles or other Amazon brands on Amazon, but somehow the problem is impossible for us to solve for anyone else. Or we'd make less money, which is kind of the same thing when you think about it)
No one counterfeits Kindles on Amazon because no one but Amazon is allowed to sell Kindles on Amazon. The lack of Kindle counterfeits there gives no useful information about the difficulty of keeping counterfeits out of markets that allow multiple sellers for a given product.
> No one counterfeits Kindles on Amazon because no one but Amazon is allowed to sell Kindles on Amazon. The lack of Kindle counterfeits there gives no useful information about the difficulty of keeping counterfeits out of markets that allow multiple sellers for a given product.
That is the whole point. Amazon doesn't allow multiple sellers of Kindles or Amazon Basics power cords, but it did/does allow multiple sellers of, say, Birkenstocks or Popsockets or Magformers or Ripple Rug. That they don't allow multiple sellers of Kindles proves that this is not an unsolvable problem.
For example:
- If there is a single manufacturer of a brand-name product, Amazon could make it so that only that manufacturer can sell on Amazon, just like it does with its own products.
- They could also make it more clear for commodity items which seller provided the item linked with a given review. Often different sellers sell entirely different goods under the same SKU, leading to wildly varying reviews.
- They could probably do some other things too. I bet if you ask someone who's products are getting counterfeited on Amazon, they have a lot of ideas for what could be changed.
> The lack of some rights for LGB+ people under current law does not prevent Amazon from employing them. In fact, that lack of rights probably actually makes it easier for Amazon to employ them by easily extending benefits beyond what are required. Once those rights are legally granted, all employers will have to extend them, reducing Amazon's advantage.
Yeah, that's a good point. I was assuming that LBGTQ+ people were powerful enough now that they didn't have to stay at a company that didn't believe in their rights, and would leave Amazon for greener pastures if Amazon came out against their rights.
> It takes government to establish regulatory frameworks
Or, a massive cloud provider could establish a policy against certain uses of facial recognition technology on their own platform, tomorrow.
A lot of the letter is of the form "We want someone else to put restrictions on everyone against doing bad stuff - in the meantime, we will continue to do that bad stuff, and/or continue to allow it on our platform"
That is the whole point. Amazon doesn't allow multiple sellers of Kindles or Amazon Basics power cords, but it did/does allow multiple sellers of, say, Birkenstocks or Popsockets or Magformers or Ripple Rug. That they don't allow multiple sellers of Kindles proves that this is not an unsolvable problem.
For example:
- If there is a single manufacturer of a brand-name product, Amazon could make it so that only that manufacturer can sell on Amazon, just like it does with its own products.
- They could also make it more clear for commodity items which seller provided the item linked with a given review. Often different sellers sell entirely different goods under the same SKU, leading to wildly varying reviews.
- They could probably do some other things too. I bet if you ask someone who's products are getting counterfeited on Amazon, they have a lot of ideas for what could be changed.
> The lack of some rights for LGB+ people under current law does not prevent Amazon from employing them. In fact, that lack of rights probably actually makes it easier for Amazon to employ them by easily extending benefits beyond what are required. Once those rights are legally granted, all employers will have to extend them, reducing Amazon's advantage.
Yeah, that's a good point. I was assuming that LBGTQ+ people were powerful enough now that they didn't have to stay at a company that didn't believe in their rights, and would leave Amazon for greener pastures if Amazon came out against their rights.
> It takes government to establish regulatory frameworks
Or, a massive cloud provider could establish a policy against certain uses of facial recognition technology on their own platform, tomorrow.
A lot of the letter is of the form "We want someone else to put restrictions on everyone against doing bad stuff - in the meantime, we will continue to do that bad stuff, and/or continue to allow it on our platform"
> If there is a single manufacturer of a brand-name product, Amazon could make it so that only that manufacturer can sell on Amazon, just like it does with its own products.
-- Or they could at least have a moderated platform where those merchandisers could 'greenlight' distributors of their own products so if they do have 3rd party sellers/distributors they could show who is valid and who is not.
-- Or they could at least have a moderated platform where those merchandisers could 'greenlight' distributors of their own products so if they do have 3rd party sellers/distributors they could show who is valid and who is not.
No mention of unions.
No concept that Amazon should be held responsible as the seller when they resell a counterfeit item.
No mention of antitrust or monopoly issues.
Amazon doesn't have much of a GPDR/CCPA privacy problem because most of the data they collect is from their own customers, who have agreed to Amazon's terms. Amazon doesn't want to sell customer info because that would help their competitors compete with them. They have their own internal closed ecosystem.
No concept that Amazon should be held responsible as the seller when they resell a counterfeit item.
No mention of antitrust or monopoly issues.
Amazon doesn't have much of a GPDR/CCPA privacy problem because most of the data they collect is from their own customers, who have agreed to Amazon's terms. Amazon doesn't want to sell customer info because that would help their competitors compete with them. They have their own internal closed ecosystem.
> No mention of unions.
Amazon is anti-union.
>No concept that Amazon should be held responsible as the seller when they resell a counterfeit item.
Amazon disagrees.
>No mention of antitrust or monopoly issues.
Amazon has no issues with being a monopoly, at all.
Amazon is anti-union.
>No concept that Amazon should be held responsible as the seller when they resell a counterfeit item.
Amazon disagrees.
>No mention of antitrust or monopoly issues.
Amazon has no issues with being a monopoly, at all.
[deleted]
> Amazon doesn't have much of a GPDR/CPPA privacy problem because most of the data they collect is from their own customers, who have agreed to Amazon's terms. Amazon doesn't want to sell customer info because that would help their competitors compete with them. They have their own internal closed ecosystem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Consumer_Privacy_Ac... (California Consumer Privacy Act)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Consumer_Privacy_Ac... (California Consumer Privacy Act)
GPDR definitely affects data collected from customers who have consented, and even whether those terms are legal.
When I go to the local butcher’s shop and buy a couple of steaks, I don’t care about his political views.
Why should I in this case?
Why should I in this case?
You probably would care about how your butcher exerted his political will if he was worth almost a trillion dollars and had entered literally every facet of your life, including selling police surveillance equipment that's installed on your own home.
He also would probably care if the butcher refused to sell to him on the basis of his political ideology, and was the only butcher in town after cornering the market.
Hey Alexa, how do you clean up a murder scene?
Damn you... on one hand I'm very curious what her response is, on the other... I do not want to end up in jail.
[deleted]
I think that's a good question.
One reason I might: Amazon has a lot more power and money than the local butcher.
One reason I might: Amazon has a lot more power and money than the local butcher.
I think this is primarily a response to employee unhappiness about some of these topics. Amazon also uses statements like this and the leadership principles to ensure that the autonomous two-pizza teams make decisions that align with the high-level beliefs of the company. It's going to be easier to push for climate-conscious decisions now that this document has been published.
But you would think twice if they had a nazi flag hanging in the window. Or if the owner refuses to cut meat for a gay wedding and everyone in town is watching who enters.
You should care if what they are doing is against your belief system. There is a domain register that doesn't allow employees to smoke at work or home. I decided to pull my business because I don't want to support that type of company. Maybe amazon doesn't align with your views.
You should care if what they are doing is against your belief system. There is a domain register that doesn't allow employees to smoke at work or home. I decided to pull my business because I don't want to support that type of company. Maybe amazon doesn't align with your views.
> You should care if what they are doing is against your belief system.
I think it's a legit question how far you take this though.
Do business with nazis? Fuck no!
Do business with someone with different ideas on the ideal rate of taxation? Seems ok to me.
Somewhere in the middle things are a bit murky for me, to be honest.
I think it's a legit question how far you take this though.
Do business with nazis? Fuck no!
Do business with someone with different ideas on the ideal rate of taxation? Seems ok to me.
Somewhere in the middle things are a bit murky for me, to be honest.
What are your butcher's political beliefs about food safety laws?
As I read this, everything seems to boil down to:
"We have inoffensive morals, but we don't let them interfere with making money."
"We have inoffensive morals, but we don't let them interfere with making money."
If you're a large group of people tied together by something other than political ideology, it's to be expected that the only things they would reach consensus on would be topics where society has reached widespread consensus.
If every influential person in a large company agrees on a contentious issue like universal healthcare, that would suggest hiring is based on a litmus test around that issue. As much as I think we should have universal healthcare, I don't think support for that should be a requirement in the hiring process where I work.
So you end up with agreement only non-contentious issues. (Or sometimes stances that are beneficial to the specific corporation.)
If every influential person in a large company agrees on a contentious issue like universal healthcare, that would suggest hiring is based on a litmus test around that issue. As much as I think we should have universal healthcare, I don't think support for that should be a requirement in the hiring process where I work.
So you end up with agreement only non-contentious issues. (Or sometimes stances that are beneficial to the specific corporation.)
“We believe whatever is currently most politically expedient to believe and is least likely to anger the sort of people who typically organize boycotts, but our core, strongly-held beliefs are subject to change as public opinions shift”
Whether they follow through or believe any of this is irrelevant, that's what lawyers are for.
"We are a business that needs to project a progressive, left-leaning front in the face of criticism from the party our CEO donates to, heading into an election cycle, in order to protect share prices and avoid antitrust rhetoric."
The domain makes me ask this question-- I mean, why not host off the main Amazon.com domain? So, is this really an official Amazon page?
There are a lot of *.amazon.com internal subdomains used for employee resources and infrastructure. So I think they just want to keep that reserved for very specific things
I was curious as well. Especially as I thought they'd been allocated the .amazon TLD.
It is linked to in the footer of amazon.com
Interesting, almost all of these issues are social issues (LGBT rights, immigration policy, etc), but third from the bottom they slipped this in: "Counterfeiters should receive stronger penalties under federal law." and go on to talk about how bad counterfeiting is for americans.
I dunno, I think corporations talking about social issues stands out more because it's contentious. If I was to try and broadly categorise the topics:
- min wage: economic
- climate: environmental
- energy: environmental
- diversity: social/business
- lgbt: social
- immigration: social/political
- govt tech: political
- facial rec: legal/social
- counterfeiting: legal
- data: legal/political
- tax: legal/business
- min wage: economic
- climate: environmental
- energy: environmental
- diversity: social/business
- lgbt: social
- immigration: social/political
- govt tech: political
- facial rec: legal/social
- counterfeiting: legal
- data: legal/political
- tax: legal/business
They're taking a stand on things they have little to no control over. This way they can signal their virtue to us, but not actually have to take action. 100,000 electric vans is easy for Amazon, they can just throw money at the problem. As far as regulations are concerned at this point any regulations, like stronger penalties for counterfeiters, only help to entrench Amazon's positions. Amazon can definitely afford more regulations, however, this makes it much harder for smaller businesses to grow. This is very much like how Facebook is giving lip service to privacy these days. Facebook already has all the data, so by pressuring the government into making privacy laws they are further entrenching their positions by making it harder for new entrants into the market.
That is not the only point that contrasts with the feel-good parts in a really strange way...
It is all talk till I see action. Action that could already be taken on these issues.
> Human-induced climate change is real, serious, and action is needed from the public and private sectors.
How about doing a better job at bundling items? Or encourage people to not use 2 day shipping? I'd argue Amazon actually incentivizes single package and fast shipping, which are counter to this message.
> The rights of LGBTQ+ people must be protected.
> We strongly support the rights of immigrants and immigration reform.
> Governments should work quickly to put in place a regulatory framework for facial recognition technology.
I think these three are tied together. I'll also say that with all the stuff coming out of the woodworks this week (in respect to Hong Kong) all this needs explicit action for people to believe that Amazon cares. We're seeing a lot of companies that say they care but act differently. So it is all talk until I see action as far as I'm concerned.
> Human-induced climate change is real, serious, and action is needed from the public and private sectors.
How about doing a better job at bundling items? Or encourage people to not use 2 day shipping? I'd argue Amazon actually incentivizes single package and fast shipping, which are counter to this message.
> The rights of LGBTQ+ people must be protected.
> We strongly support the rights of immigrants and immigration reform.
> Governments should work quickly to put in place a regulatory framework for facial recognition technology.
I think these three are tied together. I'll also say that with all the stuff coming out of the woodworks this week (in respect to Hong Kong) all this needs explicit action for people to believe that Amazon cares. We're seeing a lot of companies that say they care but act differently. So it is all talk until I see action as far as I'm concerned.
It looks like they're buying 100,000 electric delivery vehicles; seems like they're taking action.
Awesome! Thank you for letting me know. That is action that I am happy about.
On Climate Change.
All of amazons shit is made in China, which does not the same environmental standards we have. This just seems like lip service.
All of amazons shit is made in China, which does not the same environmental standards we have. This just seems like lip service.
I think it is lobbying for more taxes than anything else.
It's fascinating how many of these boil down to "We know we do terrible things. Somebody really ought to stop us!"
[deleted]
> We are using our position as one of the nation’s largest employers to encourage other companies to raise their wages and to lobby members of Congress and state legislatures to raise the minimum wage.
I heard this first-hand from an Amazon HR who fought for the rights of the warehouse workers (factories as they call them) that during one of the bi-annual OLR (reviews) they were given feedback that they simply don't get the business and aren't a fit for the role. They said it was because they prevented warehouse contract workers or employees from being terminated without-cause, which would have saved Amazon money that they otherwise would have have paid as severance and absolved them from affording the workers a notice period. The factory workers (in their home-country) are no better than slaves as they do not understand their rights well enough and the managers take them for a ride to please their superiors in furthering narrative that serves as datapoints for their leadership qualities bi-annually. Amazon as a corporate might take an official stance, sure, but Amazon's vulture-culture is hiding in the plain sight for all to see.
> Amazon prioritizes equal pay, and since we’ve been measuring and publishing the ratio over the past several years, women have earned between 99.5 and 101.5 cents for every dollar that men have earned in the same jobs.
Why is that an ex-teammate of another Amazonian I spoke to who had issues with their eyesight struggled immeasurably to get promoted before quitting or being made to quit? Why do they stack-rank someone undergoing personal trauma or chronic illness to the bottom and treat them like a perishable resource? Again, official stance is one thing, ground realities are another. Lying with statistics is one thing, actually confronting the elephant in the room... Well, that's not their forte.
> Governments should work quickly to put in place a regulatory framework for facial recognition technology.
https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/search?q=Ring
> Our customer-centric approach has led us to follow privacy-by-design principles since our founding.
It is well-known that Amazon would copy your product and manufacture it themselves if there's enough money in it. How do they know? Well, they mine the hell out of the buying behaviour they track. They conveniently can target market segments to optimise returns. Not to mention prominent placement for Amazon Brands in search results.
Also, I believe, they do share buyer's personal information with the seller, per purchase.
And show ads.
None of this screams privacy-by-design, to me.
> Corporate tax codes should incentivize investment in the economy and job creation.
Why isn't there a bullet point abt social responsibility? Continuing to corner massive amt of wealth for your board, your shareholders, your VPs and employees is plain greed after a point.
I guess, I'm just grumpy and need to lighten up.
I heard this first-hand from an Amazon HR who fought for the rights of the warehouse workers (factories as they call them) that during one of the bi-annual OLR (reviews) they were given feedback that they simply don't get the business and aren't a fit for the role. They said it was because they prevented warehouse contract workers or employees from being terminated without-cause, which would have saved Amazon money that they otherwise would have have paid as severance and absolved them from affording the workers a notice period. The factory workers (in their home-country) are no better than slaves as they do not understand their rights well enough and the managers take them for a ride to please their superiors in furthering narrative that serves as datapoints for their leadership qualities bi-annually. Amazon as a corporate might take an official stance, sure, but Amazon's vulture-culture is hiding in the plain sight for all to see.
> Amazon prioritizes equal pay, and since we’ve been measuring and publishing the ratio over the past several years, women have earned between 99.5 and 101.5 cents for every dollar that men have earned in the same jobs.
Why is that an ex-teammate of another Amazonian I spoke to who had issues with their eyesight struggled immeasurably to get promoted before quitting or being made to quit? Why do they stack-rank someone undergoing personal trauma or chronic illness to the bottom and treat them like a perishable resource? Again, official stance is one thing, ground realities are another. Lying with statistics is one thing, actually confronting the elephant in the room... Well, that's not their forte.
> Governments should work quickly to put in place a regulatory framework for facial recognition technology.
https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/search?q=Ring
> Our customer-centric approach has led us to follow privacy-by-design principles since our founding.
It is well-known that Amazon would copy your product and manufacture it themselves if there's enough money in it. How do they know? Well, they mine the hell out of the buying behaviour they track. They conveniently can target market segments to optimise returns. Not to mention prominent placement for Amazon Brands in search results.
Also, I believe, they do share buyer's personal information with the seller, per purchase.
And show ads.
None of this screams privacy-by-design, to me.
> Corporate tax codes should incentivize investment in the economy and job creation.
Why isn't there a bullet point abt social responsibility? Continuing to corner massive amt of wealth for your board, your shareholders, your VPs and employees is plain greed after a point.
I guess, I'm just grumpy and need to lighten up.
> We strongly support the rights of immigrants and immigration reform
But also
> Governments at all levels—federal, state, and local—should have access to the best technology
So, we support the rights of immigrants to not be abused, but we'd like to continue making a buck selling tech to agencies directly responsible for that abuse.
Similarly,
> Human-induced climate change is real, serious, and action is needed from the public and private sectors
But but but!
> The energy industry should have access to the same technologies as other industries
Amazon even openly brags about how awesome their tech is for extracting that sweet, sweet oil: https://aws.amazon.com/oil-and-gas/
Its hilarious (and sad) how this position piece outlines what Amazon claims to believe, and simultaneously explains why they're going to keep doing things that directly contradict those stated beliefs. It's an insult to your intelligence as a reader.
What a bunch of baloney
But also
> Governments at all levels—federal, state, and local—should have access to the best technology
So, we support the rights of immigrants to not be abused, but we'd like to continue making a buck selling tech to agencies directly responsible for that abuse.
Similarly,
> Human-induced climate change is real, serious, and action is needed from the public and private sectors
But but but!
> The energy industry should have access to the same technologies as other industries
Amazon even openly brags about how awesome their tech is for extracting that sweet, sweet oil: https://aws.amazon.com/oil-and-gas/
Its hilarious (and sad) how this position piece outlines what Amazon claims to believe, and simultaneously explains why they're going to keep doing things that directly contradict those stated beliefs. It's an insult to your intelligence as a reader.
What a bunch of baloney
I don't understand this utopianist view. Yes, I would like to see oil companies go away but we can't switch off our oil dependency like a light. Whether we like it or not, literally the entire world runs on oil in some capacity and we don't have the ability to wean ourselves off it in the immediate term.
So we should ensure that oil companies have the best technology available to maximize efficiency and minimize the chances of catastrophic environmental disasters (which are almost always the direct result of a technological deficiency) while simultaneously working on the technology and policy that will allow us to minimize our oil dependence in the long term.
So we should ensure that oil companies have the best technology available to maximize efficiency and minimize the chances of catastrophic environmental disasters (which are almost always the direct result of a technological deficiency) while simultaneously working on the technology and policy that will allow us to minimize our oil dependence in the long term.
The AWS Oil & Gas offering is explicitly about helping "energy companies" find and extract more oil, faster.
From their page: "Accelerate and optimize exploration, drilling, and production".
That's not just keeping the lights on, that's actually accelerating the rate of oil extraction at exactly the time when we need to be ramping down.
From their page: "Accelerate and optimize exploration, drilling, and production".
That's not just keeping the lights on, that's actually accelerating the rate of oil extraction at exactly the time when we need to be ramping down.
I think an argument could be made that they’re going to dig for that oil anyway and they might as well do it efficiently.
Not strongly. The less efficient they are at extracting it, the more attractive renewable sources of energy become, and the more effort will go into producing them.
> We strongly support the rights of immigrants and immigration reform
But also
> Governments at all levels—federal, state, and local—should have access to the best technology So, we support the rights of immigrants to not be abused, but we'd like to continue making a buck selling tech to agencies directly responsible for that abuse.
Perhaps Amazon should have clarified the sentence as "We strongly support the rights of legal immigrants and immigration reform." Then it wouldn't be incongruous.
But also
> Governments at all levels—federal, state, and local—should have access to the best technology So, we support the rights of immigrants to not be abused, but we'd like to continue making a buck selling tech to agencies directly responsible for that abuse.
Perhaps Amazon should have clarified the sentence as "We strongly support the rights of legal immigrants and immigration reform." Then it wouldn't be incongruous.
You're right, I totally forgot that it's ok to abuse the illegal ones only, cause they're not really people
These aren't contradictions. "Government" is not opposed to immigration. And "the energy industry" includes the parties working towards lowering or eliminating our reliance on oil along with the parties who are happy to sell us every last drop of oil. Rest assured it's carefully worded like this for a reason.
Some things aren’t black or white. Lots of things are complicated and necessitate compromise. Leaving out a stance on unions as others mentioned, is... interesting.
search " Hong Kong" - results, none found
[update] : ok , i get this is not an US issue, and get your feelings behind downvotes, but i didnt know this was just for US..
[update] : ok , i get this is not an US issue, and get your feelings behind downvotes, but i didnt know this was just for US..
Hong Kong is a US issue
Hong Kong is a Hong Kong issue. Ask a Hong Konger.
Both can be true. We live in an international community.
These are positions on US issues.
gotcha..
With US companies and citizens excusing to China for excessive free speech, this is now arguably a US issue, too.
Good. Now add something about international relations (such as consistently supporting individual freedo vs authoritarian regimes) and in support of trade unions, and I won’t put you in the naughty column with NBA/Blizzard/Disney/Apple.
"We strongly support the rights of immigrants and immigration reform."
and yet they haven't been responsive to employees and activists urging them to stop enabling ICE.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/12/no-tech-i...
and yet they haven't been responsive to employees and activists urging them to stop enabling ICE.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/12/no-tech-i...
I believe that's meant to be part of the meaning of one of the statements in this page:
>Governments at all levels—federal, state, and local—should have access to the best technology
[deleted]
Notice how it does not say "The US should not enforce its immigration laws."
Unions are a legitimate business activity by people who sell their labor. They are forming business associations to negotiate better terms company or industry wide in order to improve the efficacy of their market position.
Union suppression is anti-free market.
Union suppression is anti-free market.
So why is a union different from people forming a separate company and contracting out their labor? Why ask for special provisions (obligating all employees to join and pay dues) if it is just a 'business association' like any other. And if that association is industry-wide as you said, doesn't that make it anti-free market?
They are making a legit decision that reflects their position in the market and their relative economic strength as individuals vs as a group. If they don’t do this their relative economic position is unacceptably weak, and they should not be expected to shoulder it passively.
"It’s critical that Amazon employees are also diverse and that we foster a culture where inclusion is the norm." is self-contradictory, since diversity does not imply inclusion, rather continued segregation. Climate science is not settled, so calling it "real, serious, human-induced" is misleading.
A lot of political mumbo-jumbo here, my best guess is this is Bezos launching his political career... "Bezos for President" in 2024. :-)
A lot of political mumbo-jumbo here, my best guess is this is Bezos launching his political career... "Bezos for President" in 2024. :-)
- The federal minimum wage in the U.S. is too low and should be raised
(We'd like it if Walmart had higher labor costs)
- Human-induced climate change is real, serious, and action is needed from the public and private sectors
- The energy industry should have access to the same technologies as other industries
(Yes, through lobbying and lies the oil companies are fucking over our planet. But we're going to keep them as customers. Somebody should do something, but not us.)
- Diversity and inclusion are good for business—and more fundamentally—simply right
- We strongly support the rights of immigrants and immigration reform
(It'd be cool if there were more programmers for us to hire, more cheaply)
The rights of LGBTQ+ people must be protected
(We want to continue to employ LGBTQ+ people)
- Governments at all levels—federal, state, and local—should have access to the best technology
(Yeah, we're also going to keep providing services to ICE and China or whoever)
- Governments should work quickly to put in place a regulatory framework for facial recognition technology
(We recognize that someone should do something about this, but it's not going to be us)
- Counterfeiters should receive stronger penalties under federal law
(Nobody counterfeits Kindles or other Amazon brands on Amazon, but somehow the problem is impossible for us to solve for anyone else. Or we'd make less money, which is kind of the same thing when you think about it)
- Consumer data privacy should be protected under federal law
(Fuck facebook)