Hacker News Reader

Comment by kbenson | Hacker News Reader

According to correspondence posted on the SEC website, Amazon had sought the regulator’s permission to skip the proposals as being insignificant to its business, among other things, but was turned down on March 28.

Amazon then took the unusual step of asking for a reconsideration of that decision, but was again rebuffed in a April 3 letter from the agency.

I think if you feel the need to ask again, because you really don't want to let them vote on it, that works against the idea that it's insignificant to your business...

View on HN

To me, it is a perfectly coherent argument that the topic is insignificant to your business, but that the associated politicking at your meeting might be disruptive (particularly if you expect it to be based on inaccurate information).

We don’t know if Amazon is honestly arguing from that position, or being dishonest as you imply.

If it was insignificant then there would be no fight over it, Amazon would drop it. The fact that Amazon does not drop it, means there is significance.

It's a catch 22

Let’s do a quick substitution and see if you argument holds if we insert something we can hopefully both agree would definately be insignificant.

Let’s assume someone scheduled a vote to force Bezos to get a hair transplant or quit his position. Could we agree then that this would be insignificant to Amazons business? Could we agree that it would still be insignificant even if Amazon fought to drop that vote? I’d think so.

Last I checked Jeff's hair wasn't a critical element in the chain of events leading to automated means of global social control.

You're trying to stop a tidal wave by standing in front of it instead of addressing the root problem: you have no trust in our systems to not abuse this technology, including law enforcement and the federal government.

Stopping Amazon's poorly implemented facial recognition system won't stop the N start-ups in the space who are doing it better. It won't stop the Chinese government, which is already using much more advanced versions of this technology to police a significant portion of the human population.

Let's say you do manage to stop Amazon from offering this service. Do you think the problem is resolved? Will police departments in the US stop trying to use this technology or will they likely source it from somewhere else with less publicity?

Someday you will die why are you bothering to eat a hearty breakfast now?

Our world is the sum of countless factors. Giving up issues large and small will on net make the world worse to larger or smaller degrees.

If majority of shareholders have strong opinion on the matter then it is significant, because that means they would prefer if their shares were associated with such thing. If they would prefer that, it means they want their shares slightly less without it. Which means they are worth less to them. Public companies are a mess.

> If majority of shareholders have strong opinion on the matter then it is significant

The process of determining whether a majority of shareholders have an opinion about anything is costly and tedious. That said, this doesn't appear to be a meaningless question from a shareholder perspective.

A publicly traded company should act in the interest of its shareholders. If a large portion of those shareholders hold certain moral standards that they value higher than money, shouldn't the company be held to those standards?

If people felt that strongly about a CEO's haircut, maybe it should be up for debate too, but it's a terrible comparison since it wouldn't affect society at large the way that large-scale surveillance does.

This is a poor example because it draws a comparison on what most would consider an invasion on a person's basic rights. I'm aware that public facing figures have to maintain an image but a hair transplant is more invasive than basic grooming.

A better comparison would be that the shareholders wanted it so that Beezos had to wear a well designed Amazon logo branded tie during business vs. whatever he wears. That example is far less invasive of personal rights and insignificant to the business operations. Most would agree it would be silly to waste time and effort worrying about Beezo's work tie design...

Or, keeping in line with the original example, that Beezos had to wear an Amazon hat/cap during business work.

Let's try a different substitution.

Suppose, do to some new efficiencies, Bezos proposes converting a few warehouses to detention centers. It would be an insignificant part of Amazon business. This project is potentially very politically costly to an apolitical company. Even though it's insignificant the shareholders want a vote on it.

You need to also provide a (plausible) reason for why this "insignificant" motion would be judged as significant by the SEC, else your argument is not coherent.

"Could we agree that it would still be insignificant even if Amazon fought to drop that vote?"

No I don't think we could agree here, because if it was significant to the company, then the stock holders would demand the hair change. And if it wasnt, then shareholders wouldn't, See, it's a catch-22. ;P

Reply on news.ycombinator.com