It is a selection of facts intended to present an act of philanthropy as a PR liability. Systemically, it is why most restaurant groups throw food out instead of donating it. The latter should be the default move. But if donating invites more criticism than disposing, guess which one is incentivized.
I don't understand at all how this is anything remotely like a hit piece. Have some compassion for the homeless who everyone here, Amazon and the newspaper, are trying to help.
Could Amazon do more, as the quoted paragraph suggests? Yes.
Non sequitur. Nobody is discussing legal risks. Just PR ones. If I own a restaurant, and donating produces negative press, problems I would not have had to deal with had I defaulted to not donating, I'm going to be incentivized against donating. This piece isn't designed to help, and it doesn't help.
What? This is a legal concern! You brought it up and it is a major legal concern across nearly all of America!
> This piece isn't designed to help, and it doesn't help.
You are wrong. More people are aware of problems they weren't aware of before. That is usefuuand that is helpful.
What is the legal concern I brought up?
In any case, this point is irrelevant. Businesses donating food isn't illegal in Seattle. Here we have a business donating food in Seattle. There is no legal concern. But they'll wake up to a PR itch on Tuesday. That problem would not have happened if they hadn't tried to help. The disincentivisation remains.
> Bizarre hit piece.
Do you really disagree with that paragraph though? It is not an opinion paragraph, it is just a series of statements of facts. Doesn't seem like a "hit piece" at all to me.