Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Politics

357 Amazon Employees Launch Mass Defiance of the Company's Communications Policy (houstonchronicle.com) 139

357 Amazon employees have now "violated the e-commerce giant's communications policy Sunday in an unprecedented public display of support for colleagues who were warned that they could be fired for speaking out to criticize the company's climate practices," reports the Washington Post: Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, a group of workers concerned about the company's business with the oil and gas industry as well as its carbon footprint, published quotes from the workers in a post on Medium. The comments, all of which are attributed to Amazon workers by name, are a mass defiance of company rules that bar workers from commenting publicly on its business without corporate justification and approval from executives... "Solidarity to the workers facing retaliation for standing up!" wrote Charlie LaBarge, a software engineer...

Amazon encourages workers to advocate for causes they believe in but wants them to pursue those convictions when related to the company's business internally, spokesman Drew Herdener said in a statement. Workers can submit questions to executives during all-hands meetings, and they can join internal interest groups, such as ones that focus on sustainability. Employees can also attend lunch sessions with Amazon leaders to discuss the issues, as long as they are willing to keep matters raised in those sessions confidential. "While all employees are welcome to engage constructively with any of the many teams inside Amazon that work on sustainability and other topics, we do enforce our external communications policy and will not allow employees to publicly disparage or misrepresent the company or the hard work of their colleagues who are developing solutions to these hard problems," Herdener said.

Ironically, the Washington Post...is owned by Amazon.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

357 Amazon Employees Launch Mass Defiance of the Company's Communications Policy

Comments Filter:
  • You thought wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday January 26, 2020 @11:38PM (#59659402) Journal
    This quote from one of the employees:

    "I thought Amazon was a place where those who see something that's wrong and bring it up are celebrated for being leaders, not threatened with firing," said Victoria Liang, a software development engineer

    Why would you even think that about Amazon? Of all companies, Amazon is a company where employees are treated as scrubs, and the only reason to be there is the money.

    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @12:02AM (#59659454)

      If you see something you disagree with, "bringing it up" is not the same as going to the press and public in an attempt to discredit your employer.

      • by nitehawk214 ( 222219 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @12:49AM (#59659548)

        Because employers treats "bringing it up" as an opportunity to cover things up before it hits the media.

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @01:36AM (#59659660)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @09:23AM (#59660384) Journal

            > Also, working internally on that kind of stuff, but doing it carefully and respectfully, making sure not to excessively annoy management, might even get you a promotion. Basically find a solution that benefits both Amazon and the environmental goals you are looking for

            Besides being better for your career, that approach would probably also be a lot more effective for ones environmental or other goals. It's a lot easier to change things from within, to consider those goals in whatever decisions you can make or be part of the discussion. Even if you have no authority, of all you can do is set the thermostat - the thermostat setting direct affects energy use. If you are ever tasked with evaluating any software or hardware to be deployed in the company, you can can consider energy usage.

            Once you get fired, you have no decisions to make for the company.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • For what its worth, corporation basically turned the environment to the shithole, and all the great things you go on to list have come because of public accountability and government meddling.

            You attribute public good to corporates and when listing the evils you treat them like small businesses. Nice try.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              For what its worth, corporation basically turned the environment to the shithole

              Most environmental damage is done by individuals. When you drive a four-ton SUV 50 miles per day, that is your own choice and isn't some corporation's fault.

              • In one sense, you're technically right (the best kind), because everything is done by individuals. Groups don't actually do anything, they're just composed of individuals doing things.

                In the organizational sense, the most major environmental damage has been done by governments, especially socialist/communist governments. That's because they can literally get away with murder. Chernobyl wasn't a private corporation, to use one example. Even the socialists [socialist-alliance.org] now recognize this, and it's not like virtually all t

            • The problem is that you will regulate us all out of existence. It's all part of the plan - you can't get the working class to back the revolution because you despise them and they know it, so overload the system until it breaks instead.
            • by Shotgun ( 30919 )

              People used to change the oil in their car, and pour the used oil in hole in the backyard. That wasn't a corporation doing it. It was just what people did. You should really read a history book and try to understand that corporations of the past existed in the context of the past.

              • People used to change the oil in their car, and pour the used oil in hole in the backyard. That wasn't a corporation doing it. It was just what people did.

                And it was a drop in the ocean compared to the damage
                the multinational oil companies were doing.

            • by pnutjam ( 523990 )
              The parent is spouting off about the glories of capitalism like some spit-flecked moron. Capitalism has a huge death toll. [eand.co] Indian, Ireland, China, the Great Depression (which arguably kicked off WW2).
            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • by pnutjam ( 523990 )
            Wow, that's certainly an impressive straw man you've built.
          • Yes. That's what they all do. 100% of them. They're all evil assholes.
            Nobody who has every employed ANYONE was anything
            less than a sack-of-shit waiting to cover up something.
            Hiring is the gateway drug to slavery.

            Well, for once I agree with you.

    • by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @12:27AM (#59659498)

      I won't try to make blanket statements regarding the entire company, but I've worked there as a contract developer, and was treated very well. I didn't see crying workers chained to their desks either. So, take that single data point for what it's worth.

      Internally, by my observations, Amazon seems fairly liberal / left-leaning. In addition to the expected business and tech seminars, you'll see all sorts of talks aimed at women, minorities, LGBTs, regarding social or environmental issues, etc, etc. That's shouldn't be too surprising - many tech companies are similar.

      I think you're now seeing the intersection of that internal ethos with a generation that grew up being able to say whatever they want on social media consequence-free. I suspect some of these younger workers are simply not accustomed to the generally established rules regarding speaking about anything related to or on behalf of your company that many of us more seasoned workers have long since internalized. That is, you don't say *anything* about your employer, or anything that could be construed as speaking on behalf of your employer in an official capacity. To me, that's common sense, but apparently that's not the case with everyone.

      • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @12:38AM (#59659522) Journal

        but I've worked there as a contract developer, and was treated very well. I didn't see crying workers chained to their desks either.

        I tried to say something like that in my comment, but obviously I failed. With Amazon, it's purely a business relationship. Don't get in the way of it, don't have expectations of something different, and you should be fine.

      • by Cylix ( 55374 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @01:26AM (#59659640) Homepage Journal

        There are several papers, trainings, reminders and etc that say, 'You represent the company and should not be saying things on our behalf.' or something to that effect. It's perfectly fine for them to go about and support climate shenanigans, but not when it comes to making statements about their employer. I also believe these are individuals who have direct knowledge of the companies impact on anything, because those people might have some sense.

        Anyhow, I just see 357 people who don't really need employment that much if they feel it outweighs their virtue signaling. They could just protest and leave.

        • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @02:42AM (#59659712) Journal

          You represent the company and should not be saying things on our behalf

          That’s a line that was in the employment contract of every single corporation I’ve worked for. Amazon isn’t extra evil for demanding this, it’s common practise, and common sense too.

      • by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @01:45AM (#59659666) Homepage

        It's not that the company is Left - yes it is. It's that they're not Left enough. One of the enduring truisms of Leftism is "no enemies to the left, no friends to the right." This constant drives Leftism off the cliff again and again. Remember that historically the far (i.e. progressive) Left's biggest fights aren't with the Right, they are with fellow Leftists. And the fights are always about whose version of Leftism is more correct.

        There is an excellent send-up of this in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" with all the different factions ("People's Front of Judea? We're the Judean People's Front!) spend more time fighting one another than they do the right-wing Romans. And then it turns out that the Romans spent their time building things and improving Judea more than all of them put together.

      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        Of course, prior to social media, you might have a hard time actually saying anything about your employer to more than a handful of people and none of them were at all likely to think what you said was in any way in some official capacity.

        How might you feel if you got called into the boss' office on Monday morning and he started with "One of our agents overheard you complaining about our overtime policy at Jimbo's Bar and Grill on Friday night..."

        Honestly, few people complaining about their employer on the

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by Aighearach ( 97333 )

        I didn't see crying workers chained to their desks either.

        In my experience, this sort of comment strongly implies that things were witnessed that many people would find horrific, but that you approved of it. "For whatever reason."

        • In my experience, this sort of comment strongly implies that things were witnessed that many people would find horrific, but that you approved of it. "For whatever reason."

          Uh, no. It just means you're reading way more into a simple statement than you should. I'll say it plainly: "The employees there seemed reasonably happy and quite friendly. I saw none of the bad stuff you heard about in stories." Clear enough?

          I mean... unless you consider open office plans "horrific". I guess some people do.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • by Megol ( 3135005 )

            Sometimes I wonder who's more deranged..

            Those that only see things in right and left.

      • Amazon seems fairly liberal / left-leaning. In addition to the expected business and tech seminars, you'll see all sorts of talks aimed at women, minorities, LGBTs, regarding social or environmental issues, etc, etc.

        That is LITERALLY what virtue signalling is about. Acting hip and progressive in public but the instant an employee costs you a penny you sack them.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Maybe they treat office staff better. The way they treat the warehouse staff is notorious. A little PDA thing counts down the seconds until you need to have the item in your hand, and if you are too slow you get punished and eventually fired.

      • It's just one of those things I've realized growing up.

        If I was to have an overarching theme, it is that people who have no experience building anything seem to think they have infinite moral authority to blame and shame.

        Have you run anything in your life. I'm not talking about everyone having to be a CEO here. Have you ran a family? Have you ran a pizza store?

        Is Amazon doing anything criminal here? Of course not.

        If we take the family example. Yeah, if your dad is raping your sister... probably a good idea

      • I suspect some of these younger workers are simply not accustomed to the generally established rules regarding speaking about anything related to or on behalf of your company that many of us more seasoned workers have long since internalized. That is, you don't say *anything* about your employer, or anything that could be construed as speaking on behalf of your employer in an official capacity. To me, that's common sense, but apparently that's not the case with everyone.

        It depends on the company culture.

        I'm in my 50s and I've been a professional software engineer for nigh 30 years. So I'm "seasoned" enough. For most of my career, I would never have said anything publicly about my employer, or that could be construed as speaking on behalf of my employer. However, for the last nine years I've been working for Google and have had little or no concern about speaking publicly, with some minor precautions. The first is that if I think there's a chance that what I say might

        • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

          Why would you ever attach your real name to your posts?

          If I were to write anything negative about my employer, I'll be using a throwaway account over Tor or Freenet from a public hotspot. They might be saints right now, but who knows if they'll suddenly decide that being an asshole is more profitable and your years of posting history is now ammunition for their well-paid lawyers.

    • Re:You thought wrong (Score:5, Interesting)

      by shanen ( 462549 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @01:49AM (#59659670) Homepage Journal

      This quote from one of the employees:

      "I thought Amazon was a place where those who see something that's wrong and bring it up are celebrated for being leaders, not threatened with firing," said Victoria Liang, a software development engineer

      Why would you even think that about Amazon? Of all companies, Amazon is a company where employees are treated as scrubs, and the only reason to be there is the money.

      Can't even decide if that deserves a positive mod, but it reminded me of my own experience and observations of Amazon.

      Short version is that they initially wanted me to have an interview, but in preparation I asked something along the lines of "How can I make the world better working for Amazon?" and the scheduled interview was cancelled. The cancellation said they'd found someone else, but I noticed that they continued advertising the position, so I figured they were a bunch of liars, too. Obviously they had to be desperate for help to be interested in someone like me in the the first place, and I've seen LOTS of evidence that they are having mucho trouble finding actual human beings to fill their trenches.

      Usual disclaimer on the topic. I stopped doing business with Amazon many years ago. I recognized that something was wrong with the company before I even had the label of "corporate cancer" to describe the category. At this point I would describe Amazon as a monopsony rather than a monopolist. (Not sure if "monopsonist" exists as a noun form.)

    • by irving47 ( 73147 )

      Maybe she'd been there since before it was IPO'd. That's when stuff shifts from customer to shareholder.

    • That's just things they say to make themselves sound hip and cool. Actually try it though and well, see how much these soundbites really mean to them. Especially if it's a threat to profit.
  • by bblb ( 5508872 ) on Sunday January 26, 2020 @11:49PM (#59659430)

    Tune in next week for 357 Amazon employees fired and looking for work.

  • by JeffOwl ( 2858633 ) on Sunday January 26, 2020 @11:53PM (#59659434)
    If they are making statements that reveal sensitive non-public information and does not call out illegal behavior at or by the company, they should be fired. If it is already public knowledge, then I doubt anyone outside Amazon will care and they will be pissing off their bosses for no good reason.
    • by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @12:49AM (#59659544)

      It is just trying to coerce their corporate overlords into divesting their hard earned money and put them into useless or even counterproductive measures for the feels.

      At best they'll generate some Twitter backlash against Amazon and they'll be out of a job soon at worst they'll get a generic statement from a PR department and they'll continue working there.

      These workers are also the largest hypocrites in the world, they complain about the company they work for working with groups and companies they politically disagree with and they want them to discontinue that relationship, yet they themselves are unwilling to discontinue the relationship with a company they politically disagree with.

  • fire them (Score:3, Insightful)

    by noobiedoobiedo ( 6194604 ) on Sunday January 26, 2020 @11:54PM (#59659438)
    this radical BS needs to end. this is your JOB not your HOBBY. be an adult.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Ironically, the Washington Post...is owned by Amazon.

    No, the Washington post is owned by Jeff Bezos - and while he is the President, CEO, and largest shareholder in Amazon, he is not amazon itself.

  • by fred911 ( 83970 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @12:01AM (#59659450) Journal

    Surely there's no bias from that source. At the minimum, one who actually wants a neutral account of the story would find an unrelated reporting agency.

    Joesixpack doesn't know the difference, someone here should.

    • The Washington Post is just a summary, the link to the actual Medium article is also in the summary, so you can see it if you want.
  • by bjwest ( 14070 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @12:06AM (#59659458)
    Sorry to break this to you little snowflakes, but employees have absolutely no say in how a company runs, who it does business with nor it's carbon footprint. None of those have anything to do with working conditions or employee benefits -- the only thing employees and/or unions have any say in. If it bothers you so much how the company you're working for does business, then go work somewhere else. I don't, however, agree with Amazon's policy of not allowing it's employees their Constitutionally granted freedom of speech, so long as company time and equipment isn't used to spread that speech.
    • by ninjaadmin ( 896197 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @12:13AM (#59659476)
      "Constitutionally granted freedom of speech"
      1) The Constitution does not grant anyone freedom of speech, we already had it... it stops the government from impeding on that natural right
      2) It stops _the government_ from impeding on your rights. It has nothing at all to do with non-government entities.
      • >It has nothing at all to do with non-government entities.

        If social media liberals and libertarians would ever stop repeating this utter bullshit.

        If the non-corporate entity is a monopoly, there is practically very little difference in the anti-free speech effect

        Whether one should be supporting unhinged free speech (like in this case) or not is a different question.

        But, please stop being plain vanilla illogical imbeciles quoters.

        • If social media liberals and libertarians would ever stop repeating this utter bullshit.

          What? The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit government intrusion on your liberties. It has NOTHING to do with you deliberately seeking employment with someone and entering in to a contract with that person so they'll give you money under specific circumstances. If you sign up for a job where getting that sweet, sweet cash includes agreeing to certain conditions, then THAT'S YOUR CHOICE. We have historically low unemployment rates. People who work at Amazon as managers or software or IT types have lo

        • I don't like how its repeated again and again but the text goes "Congress shall make no law..."

        • If the non-corporate entity is a monopoly, there is practically very little difference in the anti-free speech effect

          Amazon is not a monopoly so there goes that argument. Please stop being a shithead.

      • Corporations aren't people, all their "rights" "abilities" "authority" etc is derived from the government. The government doesn't have the authority to stamp out free speech, in turn it doesn't have the authority to grant that authority to anyone else either. Corporations aren't legally allowed to block free speech, though they will all lobby otherwise.
        • Yes, Corporations can institute consequences up to and including firing for speech. If you don't believe me, go ahead and say something offensive to your boss and/or HR rep.

      • by bjwest ( 14070 )
        So you're perfectly fine with the company you work for breaking down your door and going through your belongings? Because that's not allowed to be done by the government by the Constitution, but stick a clause in the employee contract stating they can and you're fine with it?
        • The company can and will go through your belongings that are on company property. If you refuse a search of your things at the office, that's grounds for dismissal in every work place I've ever been to. They can also drug test you without cause too!

    • That's a misinformed blanket statement. If the company is structured as an employee-owned collective, then indeed employees have say in the affairs of the business.
      • Uh huh. And is that Amazon?
        As it is not relevant to the company at hand I'm forced to wonder whether you like being a contrarian neckbeard who adds nothing of value.

    • Amazon isn't preventing them from speaking, they are prevented, like any sane company's policy from representing the company or implying the company has endorsed a statement when speaking publicly on any thing.

      Eg they can sound off on any forum they damn well please, they can't say "I'm Hypocriticus Democraticus from Amazon.com and we at Amazon have agreed that we don't like the efficiency of energy dense fuels and would like to invest in less energy dense fuels"

    • This is the New Union.

      On this occasion, it's "only" 357 people, and it's probably not going to go very far. But just wait... in the future, something will happen that mobilises a lot more people and they'll take a similar approach - that is, going public. To mobilise a lot of people the company will get wind of it before it happens (like happened at Google), and that's their chance to react before it goes public. In this case, going public isn't really that interesting, so it'll probably fail, but in other

    • I don't, however, agree with Amazon's policy of not allowing it's employees their Constitutionally granted freedom of speech, so long as company time and equipment isn't used to spread that speech.

      Even if company equipment is used, it's still not something they are allowed to block. If they are divulging trade secrets that's one thing, if they are discussing publicly-knowable information there is no legal foothold for Amazon to block that.

    • Employees have the right to speak out on any subject they want, including to criticize the company they work for. Amazon also has the right to fire them for doing it. The public has the right to disapprove of Amazon censoring their employees. Other employees and potential employees have the right to decide they'd rather work elsewhere because of it. Customers have the right to decide they'd rather not give Amazon their money because of it.

      This isn't about constitutional rights or formal powers in a comp

      • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        Other employees and potential employees have the right to decide they'd rather work elsewhere because of it. Customers have the right to decide they'd rather not give Amazon their money because of it.

        Those are bad things though. The market is only efficient if there exists perfect information on all sides. But Amazon would only see lower profits and fewer job applicants, neither of which tells them what they did caused it. They can't make the internal calculations to decide whether their polluting ways are worth the loss is other areas.

        We have free speech protections not just because it's a "natural" right or that it sounds nice. We also have it because it makes the government more efficient. Without cr

  • by CQDX ( 2720013 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @12:16AM (#59659482)

    Looking at the job titles of the ones quoted it looks like most are not team leads, certainly not upper management with large teams. All it takes is one of your subordinates to publicly question your leadership to convince you that this is a really bad idea and if Amazon doesn't clamp down it will only get worse.

    For the 357, if you stay you are only contributing to the problem (if there really is one). You should quit and work for another company that is woke enough for you, or better yet start your own, and tell us when you've grown the company enough to compete against Amazon. BTW when you get kids please be sure to teach them to tell everyone that you suck as a parent anytime you put restrictions on them. It's their right.

  • by doktor-hladnjak ( 650513 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @12:26AM (#59659492)

    Jeff Bezos is the CEO of Amazon, a public company he owns about 15% of. The Washington Post is owned outright by Bezos personally.

  • Mass defiance is generally understood to be "a lot." 357 out of 600k is not "a lot" unless you're talking about anthrax spores.

  • Bias is bias. (Score:5, Informative)

    by msauve ( 701917 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @01:12AM (#59659612)
    "the Washington Post...is owned by Amazon."

    No it isn't. It's indirectly owned by Jeff Bezos (via Nash Holdings), who _also_ has a large ownership in Amazon. That's very different than "Amazon owns WaPo." Not knowing the difference is either stupidly ignorant, or is very deliberately misleading.
  • by doubledown00 ( 2767069 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @01:32AM (#59659652)

    And I'm sure their "protest" will have an effect on Amazon policy. For sure. Any day now.

  • ....they would all be dismissed from service. Indian managers prefer status quo. Not change.
  • According to TFA these employees demand that:

    1. Amazon goes carbon neutral by 2030
    2. Amazon ends cloud computing contracts that make oil and gas extraction more efficient
    3. Stop funding climate change deniers

    You may agree or disagree with what they say. But they are of course free to say whatever they want. Amazon on the other hand is also be free to fire employees that work against the interests of the company.

    And my guess is that Amazon may as well fight them in the first trench and fire them now. Otherwi

    • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

      On the other hand, if you fire a lot of people just for speaking their mind, even more people may quietly decide to leave on their own terms. And those are going to the people who have their own opinions on things. You'll be left with a bunch of yes-men, which is fine if you're running a factory and just need cogs, but not so fine if you want them to make business or technical decisions for you, or protect you from your own bad decisions.

  • Why are you here? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Atrox Canis ( 1266568 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @08:38AM (#59660236)

    I've been an indian and a chief at more than a dozen companies in the last 30 years. I've seen it from many different perspectives and it always comes down to one basic principle. I got hired to solve problems for the company. If those problems were fixing computers, or directing people to fix computers. If I was responsible for deploying group policy to thousands of systems or creating those policies, it was always the same basic principle. I was hired to solve problems for the company. If I had to manage 5 people or 25, it was the same basic principle. I was hired to solve problems for the company.

    You have to be a special type of narcissist to believe you have a job because you deserve to have a job. You aren't entitled to a job. You are not deserving of a job. If you have a job, it is your responsibility to solve problems for the company you work for. In exchange, that company will compensate you for your time and effort. If that compensation isn't satisfying your needs, then you are free to seek more gainful employment elsewhere. Otherwise, that company doesn't owe you a dram of shit more than what they agreed to legally provide.

    Get over your damn self and save your fucking virtue signalling for your off time and stop trying to wag the dog.

    • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

      I've been an indian and a chief at more than a dozen companies

      I didn't know those were positions you could have. How can I become the company's Viking shaman?

  • by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @08:59AM (#59660296)
    that any public statements have to come from whoever is in charge of public relations. Violating that policy is grounds for dismissal.

    Why do Amazon employees think they can insist on being able to violate a similar policy at Amazon and get away with it? What makes them so special? Answer - Nothing. They should get canned.

    And what the hell is "Climate Justice" supposed to be? Did the ocean rape the clouds?

  • I don't understand why these folks don't just join an environment group outside of work.
  • ... shame your company.

    Whether or not the employer deserves it is entirely irrelevant.

    That's true everywhere that I know of, not just in "at will" states. At worst, depending on the jurisdiction, the employer may have to pay a few weeks' severance for termination without notice.

  • Then quit. Continuing to take a paycheck and and contribute to the long term productivity seems kind of hypocritical to me. I'm prepared to quit my job if I had moral objections.
  • by Timothy2.0 ( 4610515 ) on Monday January 27, 2020 @10:19AM (#59660606)
    > "Ironically, the Washington Post...is owned by Amazon."

    The Washington Post is owned by *Bezos*; it is *not* a subsidiary of Amazon. This is the kind of shoddy conflation I expect from Fox News.
  • The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos under a company named Nash Holdings.

    It is not "owned by Amazon."

  • > Ironically, the Washington Post...is owned by Amazon.

    No, The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, not Amazon.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Working...