It's not really whatboutism. The point to be made is this is not an Amazon problem, it's a systemic problem. Amazon seems to be getting more attention in recent years because of their size, but to me that just feels like picking on them because they play the game better than everyone else.
> Amazon seems to be getting more attention in recent years because of their size, but to me that just feels like picking on them because they play the game better than everyone else.
Yes, they're getting picked on because they are the most exploitive (extreme tax avoidance, worker abuse, etc). It seems that would be the first org you would pick on: the one causing the most damage. Why would we pursue or focus on the orgs doing the least amount of damage first?
> Why would we pursue or focus on the orgs doing the least amount of damage first?
That isn't the point though. Like Facebook and privacy issues, the ultimate outcome of this will either be (a) nothing, or (b) government singles out Amazon alone for scrutiny, which does nothing to stop the same systemic problem that happens at many other employers also but goes unreported because the company in question isn't tech-sexy (Wal-Mart, Ford, etc).
The fix needs to be applied universally, without considering how much damage individual orgs are doing.
Yeah because telling amazon to fix their problems will surely result in every other business fixing their problems, right? Give me a break, you need to attack holes in legislation and government.
Yeah, I totally agree. It's why I max out contributions to candidates who support my ideals and donate my time to candidates who ask for help crafting policy (or I actively reach out to candidates when necessary).
