Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Whatboutism. It does not make it right, nor should we support it.

It's not really whatboutism. The point to be made is this is not an Amazon problem, it's a systemic problem. Amazon seems to be getting more attention in recent years because of their size, but to me that just feels like picking on them because they play the game better than everyone else.

> Amazon seems to be getting more attention in recent years because of their size, but to me that just feels like picking on them because they play the game better than everyone else.

Yes, they're getting picked on because they are the most exploitive (extreme tax avoidance, worker abuse, etc). It seems that would be the first org you would pick on: the one causing the most damage. Why would we pursue or focus on the orgs doing the least amount of damage first?

Right, maybe we should take a look at fossil fuels, corn, sugar, etc...

Yeah because telling amazon to fix their problems will surely result in every other business fixing their problems, right? Give me a break, you need to attack holes in legislation and government.

Yeah, I totally agree. It's why I max out contributions to candidates who support my ideals and donate my time to candidates who ask for help crafting policy (or I actively reach out to candidates when necessary).

But there's only one of me.

> Why would we pursue or focus on the orgs doing the least amount of damage first?

That isn't the point though. Like Facebook and privacy issues, the ultimate outcome of this will either be (a) nothing, or (b) government singles out Amazon alone for scrutiny, which does nothing to stop the same systemic problem that happens at many other employers also but goes unreported because the company in question isn't tech-sexy (Wal-Mart, Ford, etc).

The fix needs to be applied universally, without considering how much damage individual orgs are doing.

No, but you should modulate your outrage to be proportional to the problem. You probably don't get nearly upset about, say, farm subsidies, do you? Go look up how much energy we're talking about here vs. how much is involved in all that useless corn we're turning into "green fuel" (which isn't green, nor particularly efficient, nor even technically "renewable" unless you ignore the fertilization input) at taxpayer expense.

Yet... this is Amazon, and HN hates Amazon.

"Whataboutism" has jumped the shark as an internet criticism. It wasn't much of a shark to begin with, since comparables are relevant. But the word is catchy, so it had a brief power to make people forget that.

Point taken. How would you argue against such an argument? Do others acting poorly, breaking the law, acting immoral obviate the target of attention from discussion? It seems no argument can take place then, because every argument is then shut down with "Someone else does X, therefore what Y does is inconsequential". I am open to a superior ways to argue when there is a question to disparity between comparables.

Appreciate any feedback you provide!

> It seems no argument can take place then, because every argument is then shut down with "Someone else does X, therefore what Y does is inconsequential".

That's not close to what the person you replied to said though. They simply said that Amazon is not alone in doing this. That it's a much larger problem.

> How would you argue against such an argument?

I wouldn't. I would see anyone saying: "Someone else does X" as providing additional evidence this an even bigger problem. So Amazon isn't the only one doing this? Walmart is also doing this, as well as other companies. What can we do to stop this all-together? Because focusing on Amazon won't solve the problem. In fact, in some ways it becomes easier when there are many "someone elses" doing X, because then it comes a general problem, and not a specific attack on any one company someone might have an attachment to for some reason.

The underlying problem is home rule though.

Local jurisdictions can and do give steep tax (and other) discounts to attract businesses and stadiums (just two examples). You would have to revoke local governing authority to prevent these sorts of venue shopping (IANAL; if you have better suggestions, I’m all ears). I don’t believe that is realistic, so I don’t argue that as a legitimate solution.

Maybe you could tax at a federal level where you can overrule local taxing policy (similar to new SALT deduction constraints in federal tax policy), negating the benefits of venue shopping.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com