[116960] in Cypherpunks
Re:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Petro)
Tue Aug 24 11:24:32 1999
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <v04205501b3e86156471d@[208.176.30.20]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990823231605.03b22790@flex.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 08:05:06 -0700
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Petro <petro@suba.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: Petro <petro@suba.com>
>>
>> If you have a POLICY that says "I serve anyone whose wearing
>>a shirt", and then you refuse service to me because at that point in
>>time, you are serving a little old lady whose offended by the fact
>>that it's not a collared shirt I'm wearing to the table, then YOU are
>>violating your stated policy, and deserve to get called on the carpet
>>for it.
>
>Bad example. Suppose we have businesses side-by-side on "A" Street. We
>share a marquis out on the sidewalk. One day, we decide you can put your
>advertisements on my side of the marquis, I can put my advertisements on
>your side. We make this agreement, with the understanding that either of us
>can back out of it, at any time, for any reason.
>
>One day, one of us decides to back out of it, and wants earlier arrangement
>reinstated.
You still aren't seeing it--your analogy is even worse. In
your scenario it's like I woke up one morning and found that you had
ripped down MY advertising because I got arrested for child
pornography, and then when I proved I didn't (say it was my next door
neighbor) you still refused to honor the deal you made earlier.
You are within your rights to do so--I never claimed
otherwise, I just don't want to have anything to do with that.
You bring up 7/11. I have no doubt that in many stores they
removed Playboy & etc. from the racks--bowing to LOCAL COMMUNITY
PRESSURES, they attempt to meet LOCAL COMMUNITY STANDARDS. That is
very different. If Amazon were to attempt to meet Internet Community
Standards...Let's not go there.
>> Amazon is demonstrating that they have NO commitment to the
>>open discourse of ideas, that they have no commitment to anything but
>>their pocket book.
>
>Amazon is not a bulletin board, where whoever can stump for their rendition
>of morality and the pursuit of happiness. They are a business, providing a
>service and a product. Unless they watch the bottom line & keep it in the
>black, they risk insolvency.
Amazon trades in ideas and knowledge--they should have the
integrity to stand up to these people. As to "in the black" they
aren't and have never been "in the black".
>
>> I prefer to deal with organizations--when and where I
>>can--that do display this commitment.
>
>I prefer that organizations I deal with maintain a degree of honesty,
>stability and predictability. I think it is safe to assume that by
>watching that bottom line, Amazon will still be a viable business entity
They weren't watching the bottom line--they've been loosing
money hand over fist. All they (as a corporation) are worried about
is their stock price.
>for many years to come, consequently I can trust they will be there to fill
>my hard media requirements.
^^^^^
Bad choice of words.
>
>If I have disputes with management over issues unrelated to media resale -
>say along the lines of K-mart/Rosie O'Donnell - then I can go to the Barnes
>& Noble website, or to the local Waldenbooks. But I think you will
>acknowledge that the K-mart/Rosie issue is of a different order of
>precedence than the nebulous title of "Amazon.com Associate" - why do you
>protest Amazon's policy of investigating who they grant this dubious
>distinction to???
It's not their investigation--if they had found the claimed
images on the BL site, or anything else that explicitly violated the
agreement, fine. Nuke them.
They didn't, and at first they lied--either deliberately, or
through utter cluelessness (IMO the second is probably the case and
FAR FAR more damning) about their investigation, and when called on
it they admitted that they were wrong, but refused to reinstate.
That is all I have a problem with--and I'm not saying that
the government should step in. I'm just saying that I will endeavor
to avoid buying from them.
I think this horse sufficiently dead.
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this
country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a
product: (a) of a gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of
rather naïve, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories." Alan
Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html
