Not seeing it. RO is speaking like a real person with pretty reasonable arguments; the others feel like exactly what she accuses them of being: paid shills.

>are you a robot, did they make a bunch of ai to lie for them instead of helping real workers

Talking to a real human this way is not reasonable. Nor is it an argument.

>how much are you compensated per tweet like this

This is like the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" When the assumption of malintent/guilt is there from the start, you're setting yourself up for a very unreasonable conversation.

>so they’re paying you to tweet that you like your job, which is tweeting about liking your job...lol yes!! you are paid to say that you like your job. it’s your job!

This is very likely false, and she is actively ignoring people who are saying it is false.

I have to agree with GP. While I found the ambassador tweets to be, well, weird, her tweets are the ones that stood out to me as very unreasonable. She does not seem at all interested in anything that contradicts her world view.

It isn't false that they're paid to tweet. One of the Amazon borg replies they tweet for two days (at $15/hour) then work in the warehouse for two days.

>It isn't false that they're paid to tweet.

Which is not the allegation being made.

Put some effort in then, because I have no idea what hair you're trying to split.

They are essentially compensated for tweets. They are paid hourly to tweet. And have to be tweeting positive things regularly per hour. Essentially the same thing.

The part about saying they like their job is true. The guidelines for them is everything has to be positive.

>>so they’re paying you to tweet that you like your job, which is tweeting about liking your job...lol yes!! you are paid to say that you like your job. it’s your job!

>This is very likely false, and she is actively ignoring people who are saying it is false.

She's technically correct in the same way that it's technically correct to say that if I take a restroom break while on the clock that I'm getting paid to use the restroom.

Some ambasssador in the thread says she tweets two days and works in the warehouse two days. So it's not really comparable to using the bathroom.

Let me put this another way:

If, during the course of doing my job, someone asks me if I like doing my job and I say, "yes", it would technically be correct to say that I was paid for saying that I like my job (since I'm being paid for doing all the things that I do while on the clock it's also technically correct to say that I was paid for tying my shoes or talking to a coworker about some movie if I did those things during a shift). That does not necessarily mean that one of my job duties is telling people how much I like my job.

They dodge like politicians.

The "Amazon Ambassadors" look extremely sketchy even without anyone criticizing them, though. They don't use Twitter except to praise Amazon, they are universally 100% positive without a single complaint, they all echo a few specific talking points, and they openly admit to being paid to make these tweets. (One of them claims that spending two paid days a week tweeting instead of working the warehouse floor doesn't count as "being paid to tweet," but come on.)

Even if @rulesObeyer is also a paid shill, all they're doing is drawing attention to the obvious.

Imagine RO is a former Amazon employee who was severely injured on the job and fired, whose life was destroyed by this faceless company, and who resents the sentiment that it is anything but. It is also a fun read imagining them this way.

Yes, if the situation was different, than my judgement of it would be different. This is not a novel observation.

The context matters - you cannot decouple[0] this interaction from the economic and social structures it arose from.

[0] https://everythingstudies.com/2018/05/25/decoupling-revisite...

Doesn't change the creepiness and pithiness factor of the Amazon FC Ambassador idea at all.

Does rather show how important it is to have good personal heuristics for "this is a real person's account speaking authentically", which is very difficult to verify for strangers.

Precisely. We're even psychologically inclined to agree with RO because "it" is "fighting the good fight" and "fighting The Man", etc. Whether she's legitimately exactly who she says she is or "it" is just a next-level PR AI whose sole purpose is harming Amazon, we have little way of knowing, especially outside this specific example.

On the other hand, this obfuscatory conversation and the allegation that random individual accounts are paid anti-corporate is one that adds to the weight for "inanutshellus may be an Amazon shill account, or at least employee"

Yeah, if this makes front page the odds are nearly 100% that paid amazon shills will fill the comments -- and odds are greater than 50% that it already has been.

I'm a paid anti-corporate shill, and so is my wife!

"legitimately exactly who she says she is" as if the timeline of her twitter account didn't lend to her identity. Especially in contrast to the Amazon FC accounts which are brand new and follow 0 other twitter users.

I am kind of shocked at the conversation above simply because of how evidently right you are.

Does she have an agenda? Yes clearly. She isn't hiding it. She has a long history of laying it right out in the open.

Does Amazon have an agenda too? Yes and they are ham-handedly trying to pretend they don't.

We're inclined to agree with RO because her account looks genuine, whereas the Amazon accounts look like this: https://mobile.twitter.com/TheKenChilds/status/1161847717397...

This is exactly what I’d say if I was trying to make myself feel better about a messed-up status quo.

Whatever side you choose to accept as reasonable, is does still feel like she is talking to the borg.

And yes, the Amazon people talk like politicians. There are actually many people that think politician-talking inspires confidence.

A similar thought occurred to me, but it was more in the vein of “what if this person is sockpuppeting on Twitter?” Like a socratic dialogue. It could even be based on real interactions, just reconstructed.

I don’t actually believe that’s what’s happening but it’d be tough to prove one way or the other, if you’re dealing with a sufficiently motivated actor. One of many good reasons not to take social media seriously.

I, for one, welcome our lizard overlords.

Our robot overlords will not be pleased to hear that you are still hanging onto the lizard overlords. Just saying...

Who do you think built the robot overlords? The robots are obvious shills for the lizards.

That's a whole new spin for me!

Nice try Jeff Bezos!

There should be an xkcd comic about that thought (if there isn't already one).

> Suddenly RO seems incapable of reason or adapting in the face of clear evidence against its assertions

Yes, all of that "evidence" from paid "Amazon FC ambassadors".