Post #2448721
2023-01-20 03:25 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@adamjcook@mastodon.social 2023-01-20 03:31
@msw@mstdn.social @jiva@devoe.social @mrzaius@hachyderm.io @uliwitness@chaos.social It seems to me that if those Reddit posts are accurate, Amazon created this program purely out of self-interest. Perhaps a word choice that is too harsh on my part? I am open to that. I suppose that, at the end of the day, it does not matter much how it is defined. If small charities got paid, I am not going to knock Amazon for that. Sad to see AmazonSmile go then, I guess... as those charities may not receive what they did before.
-
@otyugh@pouet.chapril.org 2023-01-20 18:44
@msw@mstdn.social @adamjcook@mastodon.social @jiva@devoe.social @mrzaius@hachyderm.io @uliwitness@chaos.social Yup, to me the real cynical part is grown people still not knowing multinational are not about giving moral/consistency any shit. They'll do charity or burn humans industrially, whatever, as long as there is profit to be made or a markets to secure.
-
@chucker@norden.social 2023-01-21 04:43
@msw@mstdn.social @adamjcook@mastodon.social @jiva@devoe.social @mrzaius@hachyderm.io @uliwitness@chaos.social because • they get to pay less money to Google • they get to pay fewer taxes is being sold to the public as “smile” and “look what we’re doing to help charities”. They’re whitewashing a cost-saving measure (which perverts the law, to boot) as “goodwill”. I think “cynical” is spot on. Is it the worst they’ve done? No, there’s plenty more. But is it a good thing? No.