What I read from what you said is “Chevy trucks are good? Oh yeah, if trucks are good, why does the post office use non-Chevy, non-truck, fleet cars?”

Please help me understand where I misunderstand

"Trucks are bad for X"

"No, trucks are good for X"

"Look at this use case (Amazon) with tons of objective data that shows that trucks are bad for X"

"Look at this use case (Amazon) with tons of objective data that shows that trucks [do not fit Amazon's use case for X]"

It seems that you're arguing that the performance requirements of Amazon are different from other sites (in e-commerce or not). Is this it?

Are you arguing that web devs should ignore CWV for e-commerce sites?

You just picked Amazon arbitrarily because it supports your argument, but there are many more counter examples where react is used, so what's your point?

And who where it’s faster and more performant? Not Pinterest. Not Airbnb. Not X. Not the Amazon competitors he showed. Not even the flipping creators (Facebook) of the framework. You all keep blaming the specific companies for their sites but can’t ever seem to show us an actual performant and good example of react usage.

I used Amazon because there's a significant amount of data to indicate React is a bad fit for e-commerce (as the OP article points out).