daveleebbc

I don’t think that’s the ultimate solution here — since journalists often work for multiple outlets —- and it’s highly unlikely every news org would take the route of making a Mastodon server of its own.

This line gives it added credibility, imo: "In the end, it was all a huge overreaction by PR."

Because Amazon itself is usually handling the storage and shipping -- you can't pay Amazon to store empty boxes in its warehouses. (With perhaps one exception: https://www.amazon.com/Cheap-Moving-Boxes-10-Pack-10MPK/dp/B... )

Sounds like you're just after a 80% keyboard or bigger, no? Plenty out there with all benefits of going premium/mechanical. Search for "TKL mechanical keyboard" and you'll maybe find what you're looking for. It's everything except the number pad.

Give me an example of a video that was removed for "critcizing lockdowns" -- and I can guarantee the reason isn't the criticism, but the manner in which it is somehow "backed up" by disinformation about Covid.

Playing into this idea that somehow criticism isn't allowed is disingenuous.

^^ yes, I'd argue it was. As the tweets say, I've only confirmed that one provider of many has pulled the plug. I'm looking into the others.

This is a depressing misunderstanding of how this kind of journalism works, particularly in the case of the ICIJ. It is mainstream journalists doing the work -- journalists who, in today's media economy, and with the increased complexity of data-led investigations, can't afford to do the work in isolation.

Each organisation brings different skills, not to mention legal budgets. David Leigh, one of the most highly-regarded British investigative journalists, puts it best when he says there's a big difference between knowing about a scandal and knowing you can publish a story about it.

I've worked with the ICIJ in the past, and even my tiny tiny contribution (a small part of the Paradise Papers work) was exhausting. Please, a little more respect for the mainstream journalists who do this work day in, day out.

But it's not in exchange for "a review", it's in exchange for a 5-star review. If the review isn't 5-stars, the person doesn't get their money.

Amazon does offer a legitimate program for brands to offer free gifts in return for reviews, but it doesn't require those reviews to be positive.

Lack of effort? I wrote the FT piece referenced in CNBC's reporting, regarding the 20,000 fake reviews. While the reviews have been taken down, there doesn't seem to have been any repercussions for the companies. All the products are still live... complete with other suspect reviews (just from users not specifically highlighted by our report).

Amazon could do a lot more. I've just opened up Telegram to see what's happening in the scam review groups today, and within seconds I can see that this wifi range extender is being boosted by paid-for positive reviews: https://www.amazon.com/Extender-Wodgreat-Wireless-Repeater-I...

(The 5-star reviews on that page confirm the theory).

If I can do that, on a Sunday morning, from my home... why isn't Amazon?

Oh please, AGNB isn't in the same league as Louis Theroux. It's a great YouTube channel and they do a good job of making fools look foolish, but to compare it to Theroux's work is absurd.

To be fair - it's been covered by the East Bay Times, SF Chron and KQED in some depth. That's how I heard about it.

I think it's more complex than checking twice. You can't check twice for something that doesn't exist on a record but should, for example. How would you know what to look for?

That's exactly the difference. Mr Woods (the defender I quote in the story) described the old system as something a computer hacker would use in a Hollywood movie... but it worked and was stable.

Hm - I take your point. I was coming at it from a public safety point of view first and foremost. But I can see the other side, sure.