Sorry but you don’t speak for regular Amazon employees. You’ve just made that up.
Don't weasel out of supporting it by asking him to prove a negative as a response.
Please, go play partial judge elsewhere. Oh BTW, your friend just implied I was a fascist, (see quote).
> The logical conclusion of your arguments basically Fascism - putting profit above people, which isn’t remotely close to common sense.
1. When everyone's fascist, no one is.
2. Name-calling is just an absolute no no on HN.
3. Your friend doesn't know the definition of fascism.
There was a extremely active discussion on an internal mailing list when "the letter" came out that was signed "Amazonians." While there were a small number of very vocal proponents of stopping the sale of the technology, the prevailing opinion was split between indifference and anger by less than 400, mostly young and relatively new Amazon employees, representing themselves as anywhere near a significant portion of "Amazonians" (however much that was intended versus sensationalism, I refuse to speculate).
I think the government having too much power is more of a liability than it is a benefit.
Shouldn’t businesses be free to serve who they want to?
Fascism is about putting profit about people? I thought Fascism was commonly associated with National Socialism which doesn't sound very pro profits.
Law enforcement in the broader sense is a different matter - there’s obviously legitimate use cases. But extreme caution needs to be exercised. Those folks do indeed have a valuable job to do - but within reason and never beyond reproach.
Also I don’t think you know what blackmail is. Now if I had a penny for every conservative boycott of some “liberal” company... I guess those folks are all “extremists”.
And then there's the deathly silence on actual evidence that a majority of Amazonians even want this. Instead, it's very likely the voice of a radical, but vocal minority, quite literally blackmailing the company.
Here's the blackmail clause - "deny ICE rekognition access, or we'll leak confidential company information to BuzzFeed (and the media) and make a hit piece of your policy in an echo chamber that sympathizes with our politics"
I could give a crap about conservatives protesting companies for politician reasons. I don't believe a baker should be able to deny a gay couple a wedding cake, and I certainly don't believe Amazon or valley intersectionaliats should have the power to deny the government of the United States, whose policies have checks and balances in 3 branches of governece, access to tech.
If, on the contrary, you proposed a legal challenge in the courts on constitutional merits, I'd support that. But this power trip of valley intersectionaliats de-platforming everything they disagree with is exhausting, in a free and mature democracy like the US.
Okay, so left of the democrats.
I'd be fine with that.
I don't think you know what intersectionality is.
Not giving law enforcement broad surveillance capabilities hardly seems like a position conservatives would oppose. As usual the ones who yell loudest about tyranny are also the ones who cheerfully fight for it.
This is all about the letf's power tripping political opponents out of a platform. It's a 180 phase shift of a scenario where some employers deny insurance coverage of birth control on religious or moral grounds.
I do not agree with either side on this behavior, and frankly find this a hole in the Constitution where a company can simply deny a legal transaction because they disagree with the recipient of the service
That's OK, just as long as these intersectionalists are the first to go when revenue declines from their extremist philosophy stops supporting Amazon jobs. I think they should take their activism to it's logical conclusion and start cannibalizing both revenues and operations with their manufactured outrage and activism - only then will this reach fever pitch and force management to openly call this group's hypocrisy out.
We really need center of the aisle, common sense to be popular again in this country