Hacker News Reader

Comment by themoonbus | Hacker News Reader

It's good they're transparent, but are you arguing that whatever the reps say is inherently truthful because Amazon is transparent about their role?

I don't consider paid statements to be a good indicator of anything except that Amazon is trying out different PR tactics.

View on HN

I'm saying everything they're saying appears to be factual, and also that they are transparent.

In the article there is an example of a tweet talking about great working conditions. Which is not factual.

Good thing "great" is subjective.

Source?

Undercover reporting and a survey of 241 workers: https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/whats-it-really-like-wo...

It's not the most comprehensive data, but I would put more stock in this than in paid tweets from employees.

If they really wanted to address the issue in a transparent way, why not conduct some independent research and release results to the public? E.g. an anonymous survey of a representative sample of warehouse workers.

I mean, that's a survey of one warehouse. I'm not sure if there's enough information to conclude that all Amazon warehouses have terrible working conditions.

That's why I said it's not the most comprehensive. However, there have been multiple investigative reports. Enough to make it a pattern. And again, nearly anything is a better source of truth than tweets by employees paid to tweet positive things, which was my original point.

Your original point was that the claim that "Amazon working conditions are great" is not factual, i.e. your original point was "Amazon working conditions are not great". I don't see any mention that "paid tweets from employees are not the best source of truth" in your original comment.

I agree that we should take paid tweets by employees with a large grain of salt, but I also want to point out that you likewise have essentially 0 evidence that they're not telling the truth, apart from random surveys and a few investigative reports, most of which are about warehouses halfway around the world.

I think it's import to remember that, like Amazon, journalists also like to appeal to a certain narrative (how often do they report about the amount of Good Amazon has done for the world?).

A pattern of a few (potentially based) data points is hardly a pattern.

Tweets by paid employees don't count as data points. And yes, I do consider multiple investigative reports finding similar issues throughout the world to be a pattern

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17243026/amazon-warehouse...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/16/amazon-prime-day-threatened-...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/30/accidents...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-an-amazon-warehouse-trea...

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-25034598

What gives their statements the appearance of fact? Do you think press releases are factual because you know a PR agency was paid to write them?

Not OP, but to answer you myself from the article:

Tweet: Hello! Amazon does pay their employees minimum wage - any less would be illegal One thing that often gets overlooked are the employee benefits that Amazon provides for all employees - Health insurance, 401K, career/financial counseling.

Amazon pays minimum wage is a factual statement. Minimum wage is not a good wage for the job but its still factual. You either offer them health insurance, 401K, counseling or you dont. I would say that's also a factual statement. Whether or not you agree with it is your decision but actually having transparent facts is refreshing these days.

This is how all marketing works, though? You create a message that focuses on certain facts (proof points) that paint you in the best possible light (although, I'm not sure how much credit I should give Amazon for not breaking the law and paying minimum wage...)

I'm still not seeing why Amazon should be commended for what they're doing here, it's just form of social media marketing.

This is how all communication works. If they didn't do this, falsehoods would stand uncorrected, which is how online lynch mobs are sustained.

That is such an over-generalization that I don't know where to begin... no, not all communication is in the mold of paid PR.

And, paid PR is not how you correct falsehoods. How about independent research? For example, if Amazon actually was interested in transparency, they could let a 3rd party survey a representative sample of warehouse workers and make public the results. That would be true transparency.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com