I do not believe that Amazon’s framing here is duplicitous, although I find their policy insufficient. I would however keep an eye out for companies offering “WFH” with expectations that are incompatible with the popular understanding of that term. Therefore I disagree with your assertion that it’s not profitable to discuss what “WFH” means.

If you bothered to read what I wrote, you’d realize I haven’t said that going to the office is bad. I have my own preferences, yes, but I also gave clear room for the fact that others might have different preferences than me (“you do you”, “not for me, but that’s fine I guess”). I even made it clear I’d prefer to work from the office with a short commute than half time from an expensive city, but why let nuance get in the way of a good ad hominem?

What I am absolutely adamant is about is that companies are clear about what they’re expecting and offering. What I’m railing against here is companies offering “WFH” and then demanding people come to the office on short notice, a practice which I think is misleading at best. That should have been extremely clear from the context. This is in fact the third time I’ve said it. In fact I said that such policies are fine as long as they aren’t marketed as WFH, even though personally I wouldn’t want to work that way.

Also, since when is having a preference “having an axe to grind”? How bizarre.