Amazon needs a process before deleting accounts to check if the target has a big social media presence somewhere that it might create a backlash. Such accounts need to be handled differently.
Assuming any attempt to create an alt account will be thwarted by the process (name won't match credit cards or bank accounts, etc.), I can imagine a dystopian future ~20 years from now where such people will become absolute pariahs in the society. Especially if the current trend of smaller tech companies cow towing the lines of established big tech players continues.
Big tech is already setting up to take advantage of the situation and the “AI influx” is the narrative they’ll use to sell it to the average person. We’re going to end up with a verified ID system and Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook will be the gatekeepers.
IMO it’ll happen via Passwordless (auth) and I think the recent push for verification systems on porn sites is just a dry run for what they’ve got planned for the mainstream.
What information source(s) do you recommend for having a pulse on this?
China would love to have our credit ratings system - but I suspect that they don't fully have the financial transaction transparency and society-wide buy-in just yet to be able to really make it work. I'm sure they'll get there eventually, but for now, they still have a large enough 'alternative' economy/non-regulated transactions and exchange that would both allow people to escape the scrutiny of a more official credit ratings system and these unregulated economic channels would likely grow larger due to people's displeasure and avoidance of the ever increasing authoritarian reach. Social credit introduces this concept using data and tools they have available, and eases this into daily life with less existentially disrupting capability - at least for now.
Your chirrupy breakfast companion.
The USPS does not stop delivering mail nor does it revoke your home address if you send or are sent content they deem unfit for delivery (as is the case for many postal services around the world). A meaningful consumer protection would include an expansion into the concept of a “common carrier” to legally mandate a certain classes of online communications providers to not remove access to one’s account (barring an order coming directly from the courts) or they must provide a clear flow to migrate your data to a new email account and forward all messages there for the next N days. In return, they are given expanded safe harbor and indemnification from what the user does on their account.
What I found particularly troubling about twitter banning Trump was that this move of deplatforming was more impactful that literally anything other action taken towards him. Where one stands on the former president is largely irrelevant as this should be concerning because it exposes the elephant-sized lynchpin we have in modern communications: power to silence is heavily consolidated among a small number of players who do not answer and are indifferent to the needs of the general public. To be fair, they are not required to be, and with normal market forces, users are usually empowered to choose where to spend their time, but unfortunately the network effect is more powerful than market forces here resulting in a winner-take-all situation for each major platform subtype.
Amazon doesn't care about bad press (do they even get positive media coverage?). It's day like any other and it doesn't seem to hurt them.
They've literally deployed bots or paid shills[0] on twitter before to pretend to be happy amazon warehouse workers.
[0]It wasn't clear which one.
The flip-side of that approach is that the company can maximize unjust or arbitrary rules against "nobodies" who lack fame or political-clout.
It's also another warning about just blindly sacrificing your privacy or other interests to a massive corporation. Because that massive corporation, like any entity, is made up of lots of people - plenty of them just as petty and immature, as any other person.
Morally, probably no.
But humans are vastly more inclined to discrimination by caste / class / fame / etc. than they usually admit to, and failure to give special treatment to the "right" people will often generate a serious backlash. A CEO is responsible for his company's reputation and financial results - does he "deserve" his job if he ignores that unfortunate fact about the environment in which his business operates?