Back when Amazon was planning to construct a second headquarters in New York, there was opposition from some local officials — opposition that was duly noted by the behemoth company in a private record.
A vindictive streak in the world’s richest man who has listening devices in half 11% of the country’s homes and shares home camera video with law enforcement.
What’s not to like?
Amazon: The New and Improved WalMart. We’re going to destroy commerce as you know it.
Maybe I am missing something here, but this seems neither surprising nor out of the ordinary to me. If you’re trying to do something (potentially) controversial, keeping tabs on who is saying what, especially when it’s negative, seems to be a sensible way to keep a finger on the pulse of public opinion. If you want to fight it, you need to know what’s being said in order to prepare a defense, and you do that by addressing issues brought up by those who are opposed. And you get those issues by keeping track of who said what.
I know we get easily wired up about the giants like Amazon and FB collecting personal info – and rightly so, in many/most instances – but this just doesn’t seem to be a big deal to me…
Exactly. Tracking negative statements is… just basic good practice if one is trying to figure out how to engage with a set of people (whatever set of people they are).
Unless there is some sort of illegal actions against people, this is not either controversial nor even newsworthy.
Not to like, hysteric over-reaction.
There’s nothing in the news report that says anything about vindictive at all.
You’re right! When I went back and read the article, there is no mention of the entries being labeled, à la Nixon, “Enemies List”. It must just be random data collection about politicians who just happen to oppose Amazon’s project of fleecing the American taxpayer and gaining monopoly status over American retail. Hysterical of me!
Un, no. It isn’t random data, it is data directly relating to a deal Amazon was trying to make regarding statements the people they were trying to make the deal with made about the deal. If they were keeping a list of dirt on people who opposed the deal that would be concerning. Making notes on opposition to a deal by the other parties in the deal? As others have said that is just a basic part of deal making.
Edit: I mean Amazon wanted to build a headquarters in a place. A bunch of local politicians said they didn’t want Amazon to build a headquarters in that place. Amazon ended up not building a headquarters in that place. How is Amazon suppose to come to that conclusion with out noting the local opposition, which in a corporate setting means documenting the local opposition.
There was nothing random about the political statements on either side. If you find corporations not rolling over anything more than normal, hysterical is an apt self description.
@thepsyker
You are much sanguine about Amazon´s intentions than I. Do I think that Amazon is going to slash the tires of a low-level pol in NY, or fund his/her opponent? Of course not. But Amazon has made its money in good measure by avoiding for years paying its taxes and amassing monopoly power, and this has involved having inordinate influence over the legislative/administrative apparatuses in this country. I think it´s safe to assume that Jeff Bezos was personally interested in the whole circus of finding which American city was going to bleed the most for Amazon´s largesse. Will Bezos become more aggressive when his enterprise starts getting serious push-back? Perhaps not, but considering his unlimited resources in $ and data, I think we all should be very concerned about Amazon´s tracking of contrary political opinion. We should assume that there is more to this than your typical intern at a marketing company clipping out newspaper articles.
@romath @Fellows
Uh, oh. There goes there free 2-day shipping. I suppose they’ll just have to buy brick & mortar. That’ll show ‘em.
More seriously, we’d be foolish to trust any of the big tech companies. None of them care for the public good, though some are more insidious than others. Especially Facebook.
Again, Amazon’s opponets in this deal got what they wanted. How is that suppose to happen without Amazon taking note of the opposition? Seriously, what logistical method could Amazon use that would allow them to accurately track and measure opposition to their plan, but also leave no records or documentation of that opposition? Make the data anonymous? That wouldn’t be accurate, because it doesn’t allow for taking into cosideration the fact that one opinion against might be from a local city councilperson representing the concerns of hundreds of constituents versus a pro opinion representing a random individual.
So unless there is more to the story spinning the fact that Amazon was tracking public opinion on a major deal as sinister is ridiculous when there are plenty of actual documented shady things Amazon is doing that could be reported on.
Why invest where you’re not wanted? Even if the so-called ‘reasoning’ defies logic.
I can’t believe someone took the time to write this up.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that TPM´s headline is anything other than click-bait, or that the article adds much to Amazon´s list of crimes. I am suggesting that Bezos’ ruthless business practices and his power make him dangerous to democracy. I didn´t need the news that Amazon kept a scrapbook/spreadsheet of negative comments by pols to come to that conclusion.
Very common practice and for sure not unique to Amazon. That is one of the things clipping services do. Now if they use info to retailate then they are in the wrong.
It starts at the top, and goes all the way down: a relentless, remorseless, avaricious company that believes anything less that utter domination is failure.
Plus, they’ve become the Fakebook of commerce: fake merchandise, ripped-off books, illegitimate sellers. Then they bleat the inevitable, “We’re just an innocent little platform, who can’t possibly be held responsible”.
Most seriously, their market position is becoming dangerous, nearly a monopsony in some cases. Their accumulation of economic and political power is a real threat, and it calls for a break-up. Read this if you have some time:
Yes, actually, it was, although you will never admit it. Amazon, like all of the larger corporations, has a “clipping service” to track comments made about it in the media. That these were culled for the negative responses to HQ2 is standard business practice to track what the opposition looked like, who it was, and what they might have to do to counteract it.
And if such opposition were determined, sustained, and widespread, as appeared to be the case here, they would know to withdraw, which they subsequently did.
You are welcome to come up with all of the hysterical conspiracy theories you like but you have absolutely no data at all to support them.
Conspiracy theories? You mean because I suggested he might be vindictive?
Well, if you want to be an apologist for a rapacious exploitative rat-bastard who pays workers fuck-all and robs you and me of tax dollars by playing local, state, and feds like a violin, knock yourself out.
ETA: When I say ¨workers¨, I mean the people sorting packages and delivering goods. I´m sure that there might be some well compensated people higher up, Kumquat.
This is standard fare for any marketing/press dept, be they corporate, political or other, if they want to be able to craft consistent messaging and push back against critics.