Hacker News Reader

Comment by kenforthewin | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

The WaPo article is unfavorable to Amazon, puts "violated company policies" in quotes, buries the detail in the end of the article, and gives the employees quotes to rebut Amazon's policies. These kinds of superficial dismissive comments crud up the threads. You should at least read the article --- you say you didn't, due to the paywall --- before writing like this.

My comment was a bit on the nose but the point is valid, there's no good reason to trust an article that's critical of Amazon when the paper is owned by Bezos.

They don't want to feel Bezos wrath.

Don't you feel a little...silly...making accusations about something that you haven't even looked at?

WaPo did not "stress that they violated company policies". There are two short sentences in the middle of the article about Amazon's reason for firing, followed by a disclaimer that Bezos owns WaPo.

Much more of the article is devoted to the fired employees belief that she was fired for her climate change activism, and not for violating Amazon policies. Including a heart breaking "I'm doing it all for you, kiddo" scene.

I think it's a little silly to take an article that's critical of Amazon seriously when the paper is owned by Jeff Bezos. There are plenty of other sources on the topic including the Reuters article above, which is not behind a paywall.

It's not totally unreasonable to be skeptical of WaPo in this story, but you are failing to recognize that the entire reason people are posting the WaPo article to begin with is that it includes much more details about this story than the Reuters article does. There aren't "plenty of other sources on the topic", since those other sources don't include the same info, and especially since all of the other sources reporting on it (Reuters, for example) are getting their info from the WaPo anyway.

> it's a little silly to take an article that's critical of Amazon seriously when the paper is owned by Jeff Bezos

That wasn't the question. The fact is that you felt comfortable asserting a certain tone in the article that you admittedly didn't even read, and then the article didn't even have that tone.

You're moving the goalposts now by just saying you should blanket not accept any WaPo reporting about Amazon. Which is fine. But that wasn't your original claim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com